Unthinkable

We are in the habit of following The News to discover what is happening in the world. Earlier in our lives this would have involved buying a newspaper or perhaps listening to BBC Radio 4 at certain times of the day. The Time Signal, known in my family as the 'pips', was something we were familiar with since it always came before a news broadcast. If we skip a generation or two, the modern way to access the news is via the internet and today we read the news on the screen of a tablet (the modern day word for a small self contained computer). We subscribe to a newspaper (a word still used despite the absence of any paper) and this gives us a view of the world that we can cope with. Clearly there is bias in what we read just as there is with any source of information but we can live with this since it broadly agrees with our own views. So that, and the occasional television news programme is how we keep ourselves informed on what is happening at home and abroad.

This strategy enables us to be selective about what we read or watch as there are many items of news that we simply do not want to follow too closely as they can be too unsettling. Many of the unpleasant things happening in our world are beyond our control and we adopt a strategy of un-listening in order to shut them out. [Stoic principle: We cannot change things that are outside of our control but we can change our attitude if we are pained by them. We can wipe out our judgement of them.]

Our own limits on politics-related news are quite low, not just due to a lack of interest but also because we have some difficulty understanding what is being said. The interpretation of political ideas and debate by journalists always seems to assume prior knowledge of the way politics works in a particular location and whilst we might be familiar with things at home and know the 'wing' to which one political party is leaning it is unlikely that another country will follow the same simple right or left distinction.

The other common element when listening to or reading a politician's words occurs when a question is put to them by a journalist. The lengths they will go to avoid answering seem endless. We even have a word for what they are avoiding, the 'straight' answer. Their reasons for doing this will clearly depend upon what it is they are trying to avoid. It might be their own embarrassment or perhaps that of one of their colleagues or maybe the whole of government is at risk of being tripped up by an admission should it be put into words. Rather different is a conversation one might have with someone in the street or with a group of friends so that to our ears a politician often stands out as someone we cannot bear to listen to. One wonders whether someone entering politics goes through a training programme on 'question avoidance' so that they are ready for their first encounter with the press.

There are exceptions to this general rule, of course, but generally it seems that the higher up the ranks you are the less likely it is that you will give a 'straight' answer. Avoidance is vitally important when speaking about the past or the present, historical things for which your political party might be accountable or things that it is doing right now. When it comes to speaking about future events, however, when making promises about what your political party will do then a switch to straight talking makes perfect sense. Accountability will come later or if not elected perhaps never at all. Politicians are under constant pressure, this coming from the party they represent as well as from those who might have chosen to vote them in. These are not necessarily the same and indeed many of the views thrust upon politicians will conflict with their own. It is a world where everyone is being pushed and pulled in different directions and any beliefs held before being elected will inevitably become tainted.

So in some ways the question avoidance strategy is easy to understand, particularly given the ease with which modern day social and other media enables spoken words and views to be disseminated. Gone are the days when privacy could be relied upon so long as nobody was in earshot. But at the same time it does put us all at considerable risk since we are liable to be influenced by untruths just as easily as the truth. The era when it was difficult for an individual to air their views widely has gone and as a result we often feel we are being bombarded with more information than we need or ever want to hear. We can try to be selective by testing the veracity of someone's comments, particularly those question-avoiding politicians, or alternatively we can decide they are just not worth listening to and switch off.

Recent world events [enough said] seem to be driven on by this same desire to avoid the truth and instead to present the facts in a way that suits some other purpose, despite the fact that we can all clearly see what is missing. It is even more alarming to think that in some circumstances today the very notion of 'straight talking' might be considered illegal in the eyes of the law, which may result in these words not surviving here for long. So read it whilst you can!