Watching Politicians On Television

I’m giving up.

I’ve decided there’s no reason to watch a politician on television.

Forget Meet the Press or This Week With George Stephanopoulos. The talking heads on those shows are generally politicians, and I just don’t care any more.

So, too, for the politicians who appear on a nightly news programs or one of the evening opinion shows.

I think I’ll boycott.

It’s not that I loathe all politicians — although that’s increasingly becoming true. It’s more that what politicians say is so entirely predictable. In fact, I could play all politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — on television, and save a lot of effort.

“Hey, Mark. Now you’re a Democratic senator. What do you have to say about the attacks on fishing boats and capture of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela?”

“It’s a sin. There’s no war. There’s no justification for the military to kill people whose boats could be interdicted. And the military operation against Maduro was an impressive military display, but what are we going to achieve by it, and shouldn’t Trump have consulted Congress?”

Right?

Wait! Someone’s calling me.

“Hey, Mark. Now you’re a Republican senator. What do you have to say about Venezuela?”

“Can you believe those crazy Democrats are taking the side of narcoterrorists? The guys in the boats are  bringing drugs into the United States, killing tens of thousands of Americans, and the Democrats want it to happen! Trump taught the Venezuelan drug traffickers a lesson, and he had the guts to take out a vicious and dangerous ruler. Three cheers for Trump!”

What do I need politicians for?

It’s not just politicians.

I don’t want to hear from the heads of the Democratic or Republican National Committees any more, either.

Same problem. I know what they’re going to say before they open their mouths. When backed into a logical corner, partisans just repeat the talking points, refuse to give direct answers to questions, and filibuster for a while. Who needs ’em?

Now that I’m at it, let’s stop all of the televised interview of lawyers who represent parties to a lawsuit.

“Hey, Mark. Pretend you’re the lawyer who represents the plaintiff in a high-profile lawsuit. What do you have to say?” 

“The plaintiff is entirely correct. The other side is talking nonsense. All of their arguments are stupid! It’s an outrage, and we’re looking forward to our day in court!”

“Hey, Mark. Do the defendant.”

“The defendant is entirely correct. The other side is talking nonsense. All of their arguments are stupid. It’s an outrage, and we’re looking forward to our day in court!”

It’s not that the people being interviewed are necessarily stupid (although many of them are). It’s that they’re entirely predictable. Folks know the side on which their bread is buttered. Their future, in the case of politicians, or their paychecks, in the case of counsel, depend on them speaking particular words. They can’t veer from the script, so they won’t.

Instead of partisans, interview a couple of academics, who may really know something about a subject and could be convinced to change their minds. Let the academics debate. They’ll probably be able to have a discussion without talking over each other, and maybe one could convince the other of a compromise position. 

Or give me honest reporters, who will tell you what their reporting shows and also explain where the gaps in knowledge are.

But politicians?

I guess we need ’em in office, but I can’t be forced to listen to ’em.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].