Answers to the questions.
For a successful career as a politician, it is a great advantage to possess one of the essential skills that nowadays belongs to the basic equipment, or perhaps even to the list of necessary qualifications for those who walk with proudly hoisted banner at the head of our nation. It is the ability, acquired through hard training, to react clearly to any situation without visible confusion, to communicate with anyone, but above all and fundamentally not to give answers to questions asked. Ideally none, or at least unintelligible or shrouded in a veil of contradictio in adjecto. Since we have slowly become accustomed to constantly relativising everything someone else says, we often no longer even notice that we are not getting answers, but only excuses, empty phrases and rehearsed turns of phrase. Most politicians "across the political spectrum", and increasingly other people active in public life, prefer not to state their own opinion, but to use a platitude, which is important not to offend anyone, but above all - for God's sake - must not contain anything confrontational, not to say courageous, or perhaps even provoke a qualified professional discussion in which verifiable facts could be presented. There are best practices from which it is not advisable to compromise. It is always good to take a little dig at a political opponent, to highlight his or her unpreparedness for the topic at hand (even though the other side is even less prepared), or to bring up something that competitors have historically failed to master or has been received by the public with disapproval. Because of these mannerisms, the ordinary listener and viewer never actually learns anything interesting, but can only get an idea of the quality of the work of the elected representatives of the people. There are some brave presenters and editors in the media who demand answers and sometimes insist on them. But the experienced matadors are not fazed by this and have prepared to further dilute the debate by pointing out the "jumping into speech", the extra time given to the opponents' opinions, or even, in a pinch, the absolute misunderstanding of the content of the message presented and thus the need to repeat the previously delivered contentless formulation to the surprised editor without mercy. And again we learn nothing.