The right to ask questions

comes with certain responsibilities. 

There is a piece by a senior journalist in the state newspaper this morning. He is attempting to justify the questions asked by one his younger colleagues, questions about the handling of the quarantine of returning travellers.

Now yes, two people do appear to have caught the Covid19 virus in quarantine rather than before they returned. That is indeed a cause for extreme concern. Nobody would be more aware of that than our chief medical officer, the Premier of the state, and the head of our police force. They are all responsible for keeping people safe in quarantine and in the community. 

Asking questions about that was also the responsible thing to do. It is a journalist's job to ask questions. 

What is not responsible is to use a situation like that to ask questions for a purpose other than gaining information. There is no right to ask questions simply to criticise someone. There is no right to ask questions simply in an attempt to embarrass anyone or undermine their authority.  Such questions have nothing to do with the "right to know" which journalists like to use to defend all their awkward questions. 

If we genuinely want to ask a question and we genuinely need to know the answer there is often a way of doing it without causing embarrassment. It might take a little more thought on our part but it is often possible. 

As a teacher of profoundly physically and often severely intellectually disabled children I had to learn to ask questions, a lot of questions. I had to learn to ask questions that could be answered by children who often could not speak at all. They were taught to look "up" for  "yes" and "down" for "no". )I also came across children who had been taught to "smile" for "yes". That always worried me. It seemed so inappropriate.)

 Of course there are limitations on how much information you can get from a child in those circumstances. I know with one child I would say, "Sorry P.... I'll have to ask you those twenty questions." We both knew that it might be five or fifteen questions and that we both hoped there would be time to get there. 

Journalists don't have time for those sort of "games". If they repeat a question you can be sure they have not got the answer they want, if they have an answer at all. Sometimes they would get more information if they framed the question in another way or went on to another question. There are also times when they don't ask questions they should ask. Asking them might spoil a story.

Asking questions is an art. I have no doubt most journalists believe they are good at it. They aren't. The vast majority of teachers of such profoundly disabled children as P.... could run rings around them. Teachers in those settings know they have to ask all the questions. It is the only way to get to the answer.

A journalist once told me, "If you don't already know the answer then you probably shouldn't be asking the question." He sounded like a barrister in court. The rule there is much them same, "If you don't know the answer then don't ask the question."  Such things can make or break a case.

The difference between a journalist and teacher or barrister would seem to be that journalists don't feel the same need to listen to answers.  Teachers and barristers must listen in order to build knowledge or build their case. 

If we ask questions then we have a responsibility to listen to the answers too. We don't need to agree but we need to give the person who is attempting to answer us a fair hearing.