Journalists certainly deserve credit for their ongoing quest for truth.
I am thinking particularly of when they conduct interviews, seeking reasons behind an unpopular decision of government.
Or investigate some possible wrongdoing by a member of parliament.
We all want to know the answers, but we don’t normally get a chance to ask the questions.
So when someone takes the trouble to investigate a matter, and ask questions ‘on our behalf’, I salute them.
Frequently, the answers to questions might be too revealing for a government.
So direct answers are avoided by those being interviewed, and the time allotted to any answer is filled in with ‘waffle’.
Listening to responses in parliamentary question time shows this is normal behaviour.
Parliamentarians are seemingly unaware that the answer to most questions can be ‘yes’, ‘no’, or a ‘short sentence’.
An explanation of why that answer was given can follow, to qualify and give background to the answer.
This can make the otherwise simple answer compelling, and perhaps bring about a change in someone’s attitude.
Politicians don’t see this advantage, and continue to avoid direct answers.
They most certainly don’t favour anyone who asks questions of an in-depth or possibly embarrassing nature.
I am wondering if that was why there was a change of ‘presenters’ within the ABC recently?
Did someone ask one question too many?
Did someone make it ‘too hot’ for ‘them’?