That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
This is what I call "social games" (or word games), trying to manipulate others, and I hate it.
In my opinion, the correct response is "Who are those smart people?" and "Why do you think it could be possible there's something in it?".
If they are not able to make a coherent argument as to the latter, I do love to restate the question, replacing the asker in it, and follow up with a reference to psychological projection – because it surprisingly often is. You know,
make them define their question precisely, since they are asking it; and not let them get away with fuzzy emotive insinuations.
If the question itself has merit, it can be defended –– but only if someone challenges the question, instead of just canceling the asker.
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it.
Sure; those speaking to millions do need to be held to a higher standard than those who just talk amongst friends/colleagues.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
Just like leading questions –– "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" ––, there are insinuations that are technically phrased as questions, that either cannot be answered, or are not intended to be answered. They do need to be challenged; but I still insist that shunning or cancellation is always the wrong solution,
evil.
However, the exact line between genuine and non-genuine questions is very difficult to draw.
I would prefer that anyone asking questions that can be interpreted as non-genuine, were challenged directly: pressed to precisely define or rephrase the question to make it unambiguous and answerable, with a basis as to why the question should be considered in the first place.
For example, in my hypotethical capital punishment law case, I would simply answer that there being currently more than one repeated murderer who have killed again soon after being released, some people see capital punishment as the most efficient way to stop them from repeating their offenses, but I believe they forget the practicalities of such a punishment as evidenced by the statistics in other countries that do apply capital punishment.
In the case of politicians talking bullshit –– which happens fairly often at least here, on all sides of the political spectrum ––, I would like for the reporters to confront them about it, and let the people decide for themselves. What I do not want, is for reporters to decide not to publish it because they do not think people should hear it (either because it is embarrassing to the politician that many reporters support, or because it is an insinuation by a snide/annoying politician and reporters don't want people to mistakenly believe it has merit).
No "cancellation" by any news media or reporter, in other words, no matter how inane their utterances.
Long ago, "news" referred to events, with reporters seeking them out. Nowadays, "news" refers to emotions celebrities have to events that are happening or have happened, with reporters considering themselves as the filters, the gatekeepers of knowledge, protecting the public from Misinformation and Disinformation. At least here in Finland, that is. Hopefully you have better reporters wherever you are...
(As I mentioned to JohanH,
Hbl is still pretty good; comparing to
Hesari shows rather interesting
skew in the latter... Similarly for Swedish vs. Finnish-language news reports on Yle, the national broadcaster.)
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
