Did you ever find yourself watching an interview on TV and just end up wishing that the interviewer would cut to the chase?
During the pandemic, we have had some politicians advocating opening all businesses and shops again. In effect, to take the virus on the chin, but to keep on making money. Trump over in the US was probably the loudest exponent of this theory, but we had them too and I suspect everywhere did.
And I’d watch them dancing around on TV, all the while wanting the interviewer to ask, how many deaths are acceptable here? Because we all know that the virus can be fatal, but any answer other than zero here is not really acceptable. Not for somebody seeking re-election.
You know, all that faffing around, but there is a clear, incisive question at the end of it which, if asked, would force people’s hand.
I felt a bit like that the other day. I happened to be chatting to a teacher, who was bemoaning how sad it was that children were losing so much by not being schooled. I agreed with them, but the bottom line, if I had to choose between somebody’s education being disrupted for a year, and somebody’s life, it’s a no-brainer.
Mister Bump 
Incisive interviewers tend to become less so, as they become more well known and a part of the establishment, at which point the interviewee seems to get an easier time of it.
John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman both spring to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess it could be that – don’t treat them too harshly because you’ll want them to agree to be interviewed next time.
I used to listed to Humphries on Today but Paxman always had too big an ego for my liking. Andrew Neill is about the only one I had any time for, and I don’t see him on air much now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love learning English slang from you guys 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you know, I didn’t even notice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I noticed that. Some do really complain about kids losing so much this schoolyear.. being too upset whenever the state of quarantine is being tightened. While I understand where they’re coming from, especially for people like us who had to think of child care (& keeping them in school is more convenient)… I mean, we’d never think of exposing our kid for the sake of what’s convenient and more fun…
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the difficulty, where either mum or dad has to steo in and take time off work to privide childcare. When somebody is forced not to work, it seems appropriate for the state to step in. At the end of the day, that’s why we have a “state”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. It’s been really hard but we’d rather do this than expose our kids to this deadly virus. Looking back, I can’t believe they were still at school in March. We were all relaxed and even attended the school’s family day celebration in a crowded farm without knowing that something deadly was already brewing
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Brooke got it, he’d likely recover, but if he passed it on to you or your husband, who knows?
And it is very scary – I’m currently reading things which claim that covid was known about for a year before anybody did anything.
LikeLike