Did anyone notice that Microsoft never replied any of the asked questions, but deflected them?
They are exactly where I left them 20 years ago.
It's very sad that I can't stop using them again for doing this.
They are exactly where I left them 20 years ago.
It's very sad that I can't stop using them again for doing this.
Just as linking to original documents, court filings etc. should be a norm in news reporting, it should also be a norm to summarize PR responses (helpful, dismissive, evasive or whatever) and link to a summary of the PR text, rather than treating it as valid body copy.
I'm going way off topic, and off on a tangent here.
Anecdote, famous public broadcaster TV talk show in Germany (Markus Lanz): The invited politician failed to answer, so the host did what you asked. Three times. Then he just stopped and went to the next topic like nothing happened.
For anyone thinking this is reasonable, what else could he have done, after all?
This method is utterly useless for the public watching the dialog, but has benefits for both the show and the politician. The public won't learn a thing. The host can pretend to be super tough in evading guests. The politician is let off the hook very easily - he just have to deflect the question(s) with canned standard responses three times, easy enough, no consequences.
Next day, the very critical people on reddit wrote highly upvoted comments celebrating how "tough" the host was on the politician.
But the whole scenario is always the same, every single time, almost like it's scripted: The guest only has to deflect the "tough" question a few times and then nothing else happens, they just move on. It's also eerie to see the change in the host and their questions, from acting tough three times to changing back to acting amiably and forgetting about the unanswered question.
At this point this is all just part of the "act tough but don't upset the guest" show.
You may ask, but what can they do?
Well, how about throwing the guy out? What's the use of them as an interview partner if the interview is used as a mere PR piece? They should just have replacement guests on standby. That won't be a high-level person, but it does not need to be. Yes, they will have trouble getting politicians in if they have to fear actually having to answer. So what? Is the show being a one-sided PR piece any better? They could just interview normal non-Berlin-politics-bubble people instead. There are soooo many who have interesting things to say, much more interesting than some politician's prepared statements.
Unless there are actual consequences, like ending the interview right there and letting the viewers or readers know that answers were refused, acting tough does not matter if it can just be waited out.
How about 12 times? See BBC News’s Jeremy Paxman interview with Michael Howard - https://youtu.be/IqU77I40mS0?si=NpW7cSqi2eXsQt8s
Modern reporting is tricky because there are hungry sharks circling all sides.
Should have just said 'link to a screenshot of the PR text', apologies for the confusion
- victim says hi, this thing is messed up and people need to know about this
-Company says "bla bla bla" legal speak we don't recognise an issue "bla bla bla"
End of article, instead of saying
"This comment doesn't seem to reflect the situation" or other pointing out that anybody with a brain can see the two statements are not equal in evidence nor truth