Re: Gotcha Questions
[quote=Cj Tari;657052]so everytime shes not able to answer a question that means its a gotcha question?!?!
riiiiight.[/quote]
(Mariner, J.)
Construing the term 'gotcha question' in its plain meaning and understanding illustrates that it is a quesiton posed to another to ellicit an unprepared reaction or to demonstrate that the person does not know the answer to the question. Furthermore, a conditional element of a gotcha question requires that the questioner does in fact know that the other person will likely falter in answering or would not know the answer 1) that the questioner has acquired knowledge that the other party would not know the answer or would falter in answer, 2) that the nature of the quesiton itself is malicious to effectuate the intended outcome of embarassment or other similar harm. On the facts, Katie Couric was not asking a question to cause Palin to falter, but instead, gave her an opportunity to explain herself further to communicate her understanding of the military border affairs on the Afghan/Paki border. It is not presumed that Katie knew how Palin would answer, which was, circularly, the reason why she had asked it. As it appears, the nature of the question was for clarification purposes apropos a previous statement Palin made and which was contrary to what her running mate has asserted, and which was more in accord with her opponent and the sitting President. Embarrasment was not created here, as it had been created by the previous gaffe. To the contrary, this was an opportunity to amend and clarify her statements, not to trip her up. While the dissent will likely say that this did create further embarassment, the Majority here distinguishes between a reasonable prudent vice presidential candidate and that of an ill-informed unprepared and jittery one. The former would have been capable of fielding such a question; the latter, clearly not. The distinction, thus, is that one cannot embarrass a person who is highly susceptible to embarassment through ill-preparation and other self-serving denial; otherwise all questions directed at that party would be construed as 'gotcha questions' even where there is sincerity in asking and no prior knowledge that would incline such ill-will to ask such a question. A question posed does not reactively become a 'gotcha question' by being bounced off the cognitive skills of an imbecile. It must be a 'gotcha question' [I]before[/I] it is understood, conceptualized, and [I]heard[/I] by the other party. Assuming arguendo that Couric did have prior knowledge of how Palin would field the question, and assuming arguendo that she intended to effectuate a bumbling response, the banality of the question itself, combined with the apparent opportunity to clarify, and that such a question should not be unexpected in light of such gaffes, combined, strongly overcome the presumption of an intended 'gotcha question'. We hold that the question was not a gotcha question and, under the facts, could not abstractly be construed as one. Still, to hold otherwise, would require all questioning of Palin to cease. In lieu of her status as a public person running for political office, this court would not burden the people of the United States with such an onerous task of piecing together scraps of information in order to construct an informed opinon about Palin.
:|