Tony Blair won't answer questions.
I meant to write this on Friday when I'd just seen the thing but didn't get round to it.
Tony Blair's monthly press conference made dispiriting viewing for any lover of transparent democracy. Why hold a press conference if you've already determined not answer a lot of the questions? The Prime Minister defended his wicket assiduously, not answering questions on Guantanamo bay like an absolute trooper. When he was pressed to enagage in moral judgement on the whole filthy thing he did not waiver from the official line, that it was an "anomaly". Who comes up with these words? Presumably not Blair himself. So what is a meeting a like in which they pinpoint the word that they can use to give the impression of disapproval without, in fact, doing anything of the sort.
Dr. Spin: Well you can't say it's bad. Or wrong. You can't say that you don't like it. Or that you don't approve....erm...ah! Why not just say it's unusual, that will do nicely, because remember, you love diversity and even the unusual has its place in a modern democracy.
This is double ungood in my opinion. And an insult to the anomolous. Sadly, it's a trick that David Cameron has used already so he can't be relied on to attack it. I suppose that it's just the best response to 21st century interviewing, but it's as frustrating as watching a dog with a rubber bone. Is it better to spin a yarn, entertain your audience at least, with an ingenious evasion, or just to stonewall? Or does stonewalling say something else altogether? Does it suggest that there's something going on, but there's no way the Prime Minister could share it with us, the public?
I don't like it. That's all I'm saying.
Tony Blair's monthly press conference made dispiriting viewing for any lover of transparent democracy. Why hold a press conference if you've already determined not answer a lot of the questions? The Prime Minister defended his wicket assiduously, not answering questions on Guantanamo bay like an absolute trooper. When he was pressed to enagage in moral judgement on the whole filthy thing he did not waiver from the official line, that it was an "anomaly". Who comes up with these words? Presumably not Blair himself. So what is a meeting a like in which they pinpoint the word that they can use to give the impression of disapproval without, in fact, doing anything of the sort.
Dr. Spin: Well you can't say it's bad. Or wrong. You can't say that you don't like it. Or that you don't approve....erm...ah! Why not just say it's unusual, that will do nicely, because remember, you love diversity and even the unusual has its place in a modern democracy.
This is double ungood in my opinion. And an insult to the anomolous. Sadly, it's a trick that David Cameron has used already so he can't be relied on to attack it. I suppose that it's just the best response to 21st century interviewing, but it's as frustrating as watching a dog with a rubber bone. Is it better to spin a yarn, entertain your audience at least, with an ingenious evasion, or just to stonewall? Or does stonewalling say something else altogether? Does it suggest that there's something going on, but there's no way the Prime Minister could share it with us, the public?
I don't like it. That's all I'm saying.
posted by william at 9:14 AM
0 comments
