How is it that news reporters can take a perfectly reasonable, logical question and make it sound like it has a B6 obvious answer?
Morning TV, the discussion is cereals and one of the presenters asked "Now with the reduced sodium and sugar and the higher fibre, why is that important to have that balance?"
Hmmn, now instead of asking: "Why reduce sodium content?" they've bloated out the question to "Why do we need a balanced diet?" I noticed something similar on the rebroadcast of Good Morning America earlier.
This is a skill that must be harnessed. Like a kind of inverse reductionism, expanding an issue to a ridiculously broad question with such an obvious answer that it does not even bear asking.
Example:
"carbon monoxide bonds itself to red blood cells and cannot be easily released, which means less oxygen is absorbed into the blood."
"Right, so with the carbon monoxide, why is it important that we still get oxygen?"
SEE!?!?
*Shudder* |
