Holding press conferences and answering reporters' questions is a regular task for personnel of many enterprises and institutions. It has become not uncommon for the staff members of these units to answer and expound on important issues and major events that everyone is concerned about and concerned about through newspapers, radio stations, television stations, news agencies, magazines, and other news and communication organizations. Since answering reporters' questions is often done through live broadcasts, it has the characteristics of directness, extensiveness, and profundity in the dissemination of information, so mastering the language skills of reporters' questions has become an important ability that these people should have.

●The language characteristics of answering reporters' questions

In order to answer reporters' questions accurately and appropriately, we must first understand the language characteristics of answering reporters' questions.

1. The initiative of asking questions and the passivity of answering questions

Giving a presentation, the speaker has enough time to think and prepare around the topic of the presentation, and then talk about it according to the written script or typed draft. However, answering reporters' questions is different, when reporters are active, and the answerers are often passive. In many cases, we answer questions based on the journalist's intent and train of thought. Answering questions from reporters is a question-and-answer format, which is somewhat similar to an interview, but there are significant differences between the two. The passivity of the interview is even more pronounced. Answering reporters' questions can often be answered without realizing that they are taking the initiative. Sometimes, answering reporters' questions is mainly for the respondent to talk about work ideas and personal opinions, and then if the language skills are used well, they can change from passive to active, making the answering more comfortable.

2. Extensiveness of questions and flexibility of answers

Journalists are the main discoverers and disseminators of all kinds of information, and in order to discover more newsworthy information, journalists often ask a wide range of questions. Compared with other forms of speech, speeches should have themes and topics, but reporters' questions are often rambling and diverse, from the changes in the world to the reality of work, from life attitude to personal privacy, all kinds of strange questions may be the topics of reporters' questions. In this state, the questioner is often defenseless. In order to answer a wide variety of questions well, the questioner should be flexible in answering questions according to the reality of the situation and personal style.

3. The on-the-spot nature of the questions and the authority of the questions

The language used to answer reporters' questions is often on-the-spot questions and answers, especially TV interviews, which are highly visible and knowable. Issues such as management's opinions, attitudes, decision-making process, and work effectiveness are directly "exposed" to the public. In addition, the personnel who answer reporters' questions generally hold important positions or can speak on behalf of the first-level organization, and their positions, views, and attitudes also represent the "official" positions, views, and attitudes of the first-level organizations or groups, so they often have the characteristics of rapid transmission of information, great influence, and high prestige in the entire Q&A. The answerers' answers can even influence public opinion, guide public opinion, and play a role that cannot be ignored in the changes in the economic and political situation of society. This authority, delivered through the reporter's presence on the spot, enhances credibility. Therefore, a successful Q&A will play a role in increasing the mutual understanding between the respondents and everyone, as well as enhancing the prestige of the department and the respondents.

4. The suddenness of the questions and the timeliness of the answers

Journalists' questions are often abrupt and even jumpy, and there may be no connection between one question and another, which sometimes makes the questioner have just parried the front punch and have to turn around to deal with the back foot. The on-the-spot nature of answering reporters' questions does not allow the answerer to have too much time to think about the problem, otherwise it will be cold. In order to deal with this sudden question, the questioner's thinking needs to be like a lightning reaction, which requires the answerer to practice the language skills quickly and appropriately, so that the answer is timely and accurate.

● Vague answers

A vague answer is to prevaricate the other party with some vague concepts or figures without touching the essence of the question, so that they have no way of knowing their true attitude and real situation.

Some sharp questions point to specific, definite numbers or times, and truthful answers can lead to leaks, and deliberately saying a wrong answer is not the work of an honest person. In view of this dilemma, it is advisable to use some vague numbers or concepts as "shields", which cannot express any exact meaning in a certain context, so they can also disguise the real situation and perfunctory the other party.

On one occasion, Kissinger made a short stop in Tehran during a foreign trip. That night, Iranian Prime Minister Huweida invited Kissinger to watch the dancer Pasha's performance, and Kissinger watched intently, and when Pasha's performance was over, he chatted with her for a while. The next day, a reporter teased him: "Do you like her?" Kissinger was annoyed, but he replied to the reporter casually: "Yes, she is a beautiful girl and has a keen interest in foreign affairs." The reporter quickly got into the trap: "Really? Kissinger replied, "Is that still false?" We discussed strategic arms limitation talks together, and I took the time to explain to her how to convert the SS-7 missile to launch from a submarine. The reporter wanted to hear something sexy, but Kissinger used vague semantics to deal with it and make him boring.

In another example, at a press conference in Vienna in May 1972, Max Frankl, a reporter for the New York Times, asked Kissinger about the "procedural question" of the US-Soviet talks: "When the time comes, are you going to announce it bit by bit, or will it rain down and issue agreements in batches?" Kissinger, who never missed an opportunity to ridicule the New York Times, replied: "I see how impartial Max is to be as just as his newspaper as he wants us to choose between a downpour and a bits and pieces." So no matter what we do, it's always bad. He paused for a moment and said, word for word: "We intend to make a batch of statements bit by bit." The audience burst into laughter.

Kissinger did not choose one of them within the scope of the journalist's circle, because such occasions cannot be too realistic. So his answer uses vague language that makes it difficult to explain both the traditional view of formal logic and the traditional view of grammar, and cleverly combines Frankel's two options. In a playful answer, Kissinger rejected the question. When you are in the situation of being "blocked" by your opponent, this is a part of the "defeat method".

● Smooth the river

In ancient times, there was an allusion to pushing the boat along the river, which meant to give favors. That is, since it has come to pass, it is better to send a good favor to the other party, which can also be regarded as you helping others, which makes people worry about it. But when it comes to debates, the views of both sides belong to the contest between you and me or I and you. So, why is there still a "smooth water" in the debate? The reason is simple, water can carry a boat, or it can capsize a boat. The opponent's defense is also a boat, and if it is speculated, it will be carried and overturned. If the boat is a bad boat, the more you push it, the worse it will be, and if the boat is a good boat, it depends on whether you are willing to push it or overturn. Therefore, the implementation of the debate is to take advantage of the enemy's mistake and sink the boat.

The tactic of going along with the river and capsizing the boat in the debate, as a strategy of verbal warfare, is to grasp the opponent's existing contradictory points and continue to talk about it, and the opponent will slip farther and farther on the road of being "smoothed" by you, and when its mistake develops out of control, the boat only needs to be kicked lightly, and it will naturally sink.

The tactic of going with the river is one of the techniques to take advantage of the enemy's mistakes to win. Its main features are threefold:

The first is to use the mistakes of others to help oneself. If the opponent's mistake has been revealed, there is no need to even rebel.

The second is not to confront the other party head-on, but to discuss the debate with the other party in a roundabout way, and then make a move when the time is right, and not to make a move when you are not sure.

The third is that the reverse is still not the opposite, and there is a sense of "since you say so, then so, see what you do". It seems to be a favor from the water, but in fact, it is to find a target by mistake.

When your words suddenly reverse from obeying the other party's logic, the other party will go from secretly happy to puzzled, and finally suffer a blow to the head, and fall into an embarrassing situation where you can't argue, this is the whole process of you completing the mistake of borrowing others and going with the flow.

A veteran journalist had a brief conversation with Mobutu, the former President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Reporter: "Your Excellency, according to your personality, I would not refuse to ask you a question?" ”

Mobutu: "Then please!" ”

Reporter: "Your Excellency, you are rich. Is it true that your fortune is said to reach $3 billion? ”

Mobutu: "A Belgian parliamentarian says I have $6 billion!" Have you heard? ”

In the above example, the reporter's question, ostensibly about the family's economic situation, is actually a political question about whether the head of government is incorruptible, which Mobutu had to answer carefully. This kind of answer is extremely difficult, it is difficult to explain positively, and if it is ignored, it will be mistaken for acquiescence. Mobutu, on the other hand, used the technique of going along with the river to cover up and cover up, cleverly using a very exaggerated situation to ask the other party rhetorically along the subject of the other party's question. Instead of answering the reporter's caustic question, Mobutu threw an even more difficult question that stumped the reporter. From this conversation, it can be seen that Mobutu deserves to be the head of a country, and his eloquence is worthy of the reporter's self-esteem.

The tactic of going along with the river is skillful in the use of the opponent's offensive and turning the opponent's offensive power into our strength, which has a great merit of "four or two thousand pounds". The key to using the tactics of overturning the boat with the river is to deal with the conversion relationship between "shun" and "push", after all, the ultimate push is the result of overturning.

●Misinterpreting the original meaning

Grasp the flexibility of the other party's question, misinterpret the original meaning of the question, and make an answer that meets the requirements on the surface.

Although some of the questions of the questioners are more targeted, the questions are not set up strictly, and often only give a general scope and limitation, and people can make a big fuss about this broad range when answering. For such questions, we should seize their own flexibility, deliberately misinterpret the other person's original meaning, and only give superficial answers that sound in line with the requirements. The other party's own loopholes have been exploited, so naturally they can't complain that we didn't answer the question.

At a press conference, a foreign reporter asked Wang Meng with ulterior motives: "Excuse me, what are the similarities and differences between you in the 50s and you in the 80s?" Here, the reporter's intentions are well known to passers-by. Wang Meng was also very clear at that time. He raised his head unhurriedly and replied calmly: "My name was Wang Meng in the 50s, and I was also called Wang Meng in the 80s, which is the same." The difference is that I was in my 20s and now I'm in my 50s. ”

This is a vivid example of grasping the other party's omissions and deliberately misinterpreting the other party's intentions. Although Wang Meng knew that the other party wanted to take the opportunity to let him talk about his feelings about the changes in China's domestic situation, he deliberately misunderstood his original meaning and only answered from the perspective of his own age. Although this question was answered, it did not actually give the other party any useful information, which greatly disappointed them.

●Reasonable

Reasoning is to tell an example of a question, so that the other party agrees with the truth contained in it, and then apply this truth to the other party's question, so that the answer is self-evident.

If you can take the initiative and let the other party answer the question instead of you, it can be said that it is a higher level to deal with the question. We can give a similar example in response to the other person's question, ask the other person to explain the reason, and then go back to the original question and explain that the other person's point of view is the answer to the question. After a round, the opponent's "bell tieer" unconsciously became a "bell breaker" under our inducement, so that we could easily get out of the predicament.

When Roosevelt was re-elected as president of the United States for the fourth time, many reporters rushed to interview him and asked him to share his thoughts on his four consecutive terms. A young journalist made an exception and was received by President Roosevelt. Instead of answering the young reporter's questions head-on, he first invited him to a piece of cake.

The reporter was very happy to receive this award, and he quickly ate the cake. Then the president invited him to eat another piece. Just as he was about to open his mouth to ask the president to talk, the president invited him to a third cake. The young reporter was flattered, and although his stomach was full, he was still reluctant to eat it.

When the reporter was wiping his mouth, he saw President Roosevelt smile and say to him, "Please eat another piece!" ”

The reporter couldn't take it anymore, so he declared it to the president.

President Roosevelt smiled and said to him, "You don't need me to talk about my feelings about a fourth re-election, do you?" You've just experienced it for yourself. ”

Roosevelt did not directly tell reporters his feelings, but let him experience his feelings about being president for four consecutive terms through the feeling of eating four cakes in a row, which can be described as extremely clever.

●Successive extensions

The so-called method of extension is that when the question raised by the other party makes it difficult for you to avoid and make a positive answer, you might as well push the boat and follow his words to another aspect, and answer the other party's question with the wonderful result of the extension. Successive extensions require a wealth of imagination and associative power, so that the indirect answer is unexpected. Therefore, the method of successive extension is an effective method to answer the "empty mouth" of the question. Here's how Churchill used it to get started:

When Churchill visited the United States in the thirties of the 20th century, an American congresswoman who opposed him said to him through gritted teeth: "If I were your wife, I would poison your coffee." ”

Churchill smiled slyly and replied, "If I were your husband, I would have drunk that cup of coffee." ”

It was also this Churchill, during the Second World War, who made many speeches and strongly advocated joining forces with the Soviet Union to resist the aggression of the German Nazis. A journalist asked him why he spoke well for Stalin? He said, "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would have spoken for Hades in the House of Commons." ”

Churchill did not directly state his own opinions, but used humorous and subtle expressions to contain his own opinions in them, so that the other party could savor them. This kind of indirect answering can not only respond to the other party's unfriendly attitude just right, but also make the language of the answer full of interest, charm and intriguing mystery.

●Evidence is hereby cited

In order to prove one's own point of view, one should draw on local materials, from this to the other, from the surface to the inside, so that one's arguments are more substantial and sufficient, and the metaphors are more profound and more appropriate. The "props" that are cited are usually related to the other party. The most prominent feature of the evidence is that the language is direct and straightforward, and its attack power is enough to make the opponent lose because of the surprise.

When Carter was running for president of the United States, a female reporter with a penchant for finding fault interviewed his mother.

Reporter: "Your son said that if he lied, people wouldn't vote for him, do you dare to promise that Carter never lied?" ”

Carter's mother: "Maybe my son lied, but it was all well-intentioned and innocent. ”

Female Reporter: "What is a white lie?" ”

Mother Carter: "Do you remember that a few minutes ago, when you first stepped through my door, I told you that you were very beautiful and very happy to see you?" ”

The female reporter was immediately defeated. The reason is very simple, that is, Carter's mother "used people as metaphors", and now citing evidence, not only weakens the aggressive posture of female reporters, but also maintains the image of her son.

● Negative hypothesis

Menedmus was a well-known figure in the Megara school of ancient Greek sophistism. Once, a man deliberately asked him this: "Have you stopped beating your father?" ”

How should Menedmo answer? Whether he answers "yes" or "no", he will fall into a trap. Because if he says "yes," he admits that he has beaten his father; If he says "no", it means that he is still beating his father. A real dilemma.

But Menedem was, after all, a brilliant debater. After a moment's thought, he immediately realized the crux of the problem, and replied as follows: "I neither stopped nor hit him. ”

The interrogator saw that he couldn't get into the loophole, so he had to leave in a huff.

This is a classic example of sophistry. The interrogator uses a cunning method of asking questions. This kind of questioning, which presupposes an implicit assumption, is extremely deceptive and hidden. It is based on the law of exclusion and neutrality, and among the two conflicting judgments, one of the laws must be chosen, and it is put forward by taking advantage of people's fear of making logical mistakes of "two inconsequentials." But this move played into Menendum's favor, and he chose the most correct answer. That is, to deny the assumptions in the other party's words, thus defeating the other party. The answers are based on logical rigor and language art.