x close
Click Accept pentru a primi notificări cu cele mai importante știri! Nu, multumesc Accept
Acest site utilizează fișiere de tip cookie pentru a vă oferi o experiență cât mai plăcută și personalizată. Îți aducem la cunoștință faptul că ne-am actualizat politicile pentru a ne conforma cu modificările propuse aduse de Directiva (UE) 2002/58/EC ("Directiva E-Privacy") si de Regulamentul (UE) 2016/679 privind protectia persoanelor fizice in ceea ce priveste prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal si privind libera circulatie a acestor date si de abrogare a Directivei 95/46/CE ("Regulamentul GDPR").

Înainte de a continua navigarea pe www.jurnalul.ro, te rugăm să citești și să înțelegi conținutul Politicii de Cookie și Politica de Confidențialitate.

Prin continuarea navigării pe www.jurnalul.ro confirmi acceptarea utilizării fișierelor de tip cookie. Poți modifica în orice moment setările acestor fișiere cookie urmând instrucțiunile din Politica de Cookie.


Political Hypocrisy

Autor: Ion Cristoiu 10 Ian 2008 - 00:00

Some time ago, I took advantage of a dialogue with Paul Grigoriu during my show on Antena 2 to ask him whether he trusted the ones that took part in his show on the radio by phone...

Some time ago, I took advantage of a dialogue with Paul Grigoriu during my show on Antena 2 to ask him whether he trusted the ones that took part in his show on the radio by phone. His show starts when I get home and the phone interventions of the listeners always make me wonder. It is 2 o’clock in the afternoon of a workday. They say this is called capitalism, that people are running day and night to earn the money they need to live.


Paul Grigoriu’s invitee may have found the time and power to struggle through traffic and get in the studio to debate on the issue of the day. Since this person is a politician, the things he does for the Radio show are somewhat normal. Getting the votes of the people is one of the main occupations of the Romanian politicians. He simply has to talk. However, I cannot understand the listeners that ask questions.


Asking a question to a politician is not a simple thing to do. One has to listen to the show first. This means to turn on the radio and stop doing whatever one was doing. But it is 2 o’clock in the afternoon, the middle of the workday. This means one doesn’t care about his tasks. But even if the listeners are pensioners or unemployed, making a phone call to the radio means a lot of effort. One has to actually call to the radio, to wait for the editorial office to check whether the person really exists and to wait to be invited to say the things one wants to say.


People don’t make free statements, except the times when love is the issue. Even though there are times when this last part isn’t true either. The effort made to ask question on the radio show raises a lot of question about these persons that call. We are not saying they are not for real. We say they are not representative for what we would call the listeners’ questions. I believe they should be called the questions of the listeners that don’t have anything else to do. Let’s admit that they are representative for Paul Grigoriu. They are rather an ingredient that has to make the show more attractive. However, this not the problem.


The problem is that most of the ones that call talk rubbish. They don’t say it doubtfully like they would know that these are just points of view. They are simply convinced they have very correct opinions. The reaction of the politicians invited is quite strange, even though they are aware of the fact that the listener is talking rubbish, they contradict him. He simply strives to be kind to the person on the other end of the line. He behaves like a slave or something like that.


Does the politician on the radio believe the rubbish of the listeners? Of course not. It would be absurd for us to say that. Many interventions are disguised insults. Why doesn’t the politician feel the need to contradict the listener? Because the politician needs the votes of the listener. The politician’s main concern is not to tell the truth to the listener, but to get his vote. It would be much better for everyone if the listener would know the truth. It would be a lot better for the politician, for the listener, for the journalists, for everyone who believes the electors master this entire process.

Citeşte mai multe despre:   that,   they,   this,   english,   radio,   show,   politician

Serviciul de email marketing furnizat de