The media and politicians
I was just thinking about why politicians jump at the request of the media to make daft statements about which they clearly know very little and haven't had a chance to think clearly about. The, what n the idea came to me that pundits and media experts are paid to give instant opinions, nobody really cares whether waht they say is true because if two days everyone has forgotten what they said. However politicians, especially those in power have to get things right. This is not always easy.
Consider the example of a plane crash, the reporters are always asking what caused the problem the "experts" come up with many and varied explanations, one of which might be right. However when they ask the real experts who have to examine the evidence they tend to say they don't know till they have examined all the evidence. What a serious and considered answer. However many politicians seem to think they know before doing this task of examining the evidence or at least waiting till their civil servants have done so.
Two recent examples come to mind, one was the outburst by David Milliband about the Russian activities in South Ossetia. He made an early pronouncement on the subject without being aware of any of the sensibilities that might be involved. You might think an English politician who is aware of the problems of Northern Ireland might think that problems are not always as easy as they might seem from a distance.
We have recently had Ed Balls and the Haringey saga. I have no idea what is the right answer but an initial
look at what happened seems to imply that he was hasty. He might be a speed reader, as might be his civil servants but given a long report there are often many odd words floating around that qualify somke of the statements, missing them can cause unwary managers to leap to the wrong conclusion. To sack someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves was stupid, though I am sure that all the pundits in the press were calling for blood. They however will not be sued for getting it wrong.
Remember H. L Mencken
Consider the example of a plane crash, the reporters are always asking what caused the problem the "experts" come up with many and varied explanations, one of which might be right. However when they ask the real experts who have to examine the evidence they tend to say they don't know till they have examined all the evidence. What a serious and considered answer. However many politicians seem to think they know before doing this task of examining the evidence or at least waiting till their civil servants have done so.
Two recent examples come to mind, one was the outburst by David Milliband about the Russian activities in South Ossetia. He made an early pronouncement on the subject without being aware of any of the sensibilities that might be involved. You might think an English politician who is aware of the problems of Northern Ireland might think that problems are not always as easy as they might seem from a distance.
We have recently had Ed Balls and the Haringey saga. I have no idea what is the right answer but an initial
look at what happened seems to imply that he was hasty. He might be a speed reader, as might be his civil servants but given a long report there are often many odd words floating around that qualify somke of the statements, missing them can cause unwary managers to leap to the wrong conclusion. To sack someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves was stupid, though I am sure that all the pundits in the press were calling for blood. They however will not be sued for getting it wrong.
Remember H. L Mencken
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat,
plausible, and wrong."
posted by Unknown at
10:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home