Abstract :
It´s something we´ve seen a lot of recently. Something very bad has happened, and a prominent person from industry or government is forced to appear before either official government investigators or the press to explain what has happened, why, and what is being done to correct the problem. The process usually begins with a prepared statement that acknowledges that something really bad has happened but claims that there was no way that anyone could have predicted it or done anything to prevent it. You know—stuff happens. Then the questioning begins. If the context is a formal government hearing, penetrating questions are framed in very polite terms. If the media are involved in asking, questions flow in a constant stream with little time for answers. The person being interrogated tries to answer questions, embarking on long, convoluted technical explanations that the questioners don´t have the patience to listen to. Questions are asked for which the person being interrogated clearly doesn´t want to answer, and so the response is that blank, “deer in the headlights” stare, followed by a mumbled answer that actually avoids the point that the questioner is trying to get at. Some questions are framed as statements, with the demand that the person being questioned either agrees or disagrees—yes or no—as if there is no gray area. The person being questioned has little credibility; no one believes anything he says. You really feel sorry for the person in the hot seat.
