Reader question:
In this passage (I’m afraid we need to look for a new press spokesman. Pete gets too upset at reporters’ questions, and then he starts shooting from the hip with his answers. This can get us into trouble), what does “shooting from the hip with his answers” mean?
My comments:
It means the press spokesman has a short temper, little patience and no tact. He gets upset with reporters pointed, sharp and often harsh questions and easily loses his composure. And then...
And then he begins to do what is considered a no-no for all press spokespersons, that is, give shoot-from-the-hip answers – say what comes to his mind first instead of hiding his true feelings and emotions and saying something else than what it is that he truly wants to say had he been, say, an average, normal, sane person from the street.
In other words, he stops being diplomatic – always giving vague, equivocal, that is, ambiguous, confusing, evasive and misleading answers.
But why is that a no-no for a spokesperson? Well, it is because he just might tell the plain truth. And if you watch public spokespersons often enough, you’ll understand their job is to explain AWAY something rather than explain it in a straightforward fashion, to expound on a subject and yet not to give away any details.
In other words, to keep talking without saying anything.
Their objective, you see, is sometimes to obscure rather than expose the truth. That’s why it is often jovially remarked that people should not believe a news report unless it’s officially denied by the government.
Often, of course, through the very mouth of a government spokesman.
That is why this said shoot-from-the-hip spokesman must be replaced.
Or he would “get us into trouble”.
Anyways, “shoot from the hip” is an American expression developed in the go-West pioneering years of the colonial era. If you watch John Wayne or Clint Eastwood shoot-them-up western movies, you’ll see a lot of heroes, or villains for that matter, wearing their pistols on the hip. That way, they can pull them out quickly and fire away in case of an emergency.
Hence the expression, which means a quick, immediate, instinctive reaction which sometimes, as in the case of a spokesperson, may not be the best approach to take.
Alright, here are two recent media examples:
1. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Thursday that he is willing to hold talks with his Colombian counterpart, Alvaro Uribe, on easing tensions between the South American neighbors.
Chavez said he wants to “turn the page” following a verbal altercation with Uribe during a summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders this week in Mexico.
The socialist leader acknowledged he and Uribe traded insults during a summit dinner, though he did not give full details.
According to an official who was at the meeting, Uribe told Chavez to “be a man” and the Venezuelan leader told him to “go to hell.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity because delegations agreed not to discuss the spat publicly...
Peter Hakim, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, said he doubts Venezuela and Colombia will be able to completely smooth over tensions - even with help from international mediators such as Fernandez.
“I think it's going to be very hard to repair relations given the deep distrust between both sides,” Hakim said in a telephone interview. “Chavez is so unpredictable, always shooting from the hip, and Uribe has some of those same characteristics.”
Chavez Hopes To Ease Tensions With Colombia, AP, February 26, 2010.
2. SIR – Professor Dylan Jones-Evans’ daft solution to Wales’ economic problems (“Carwyn must cut public sector to allow private firms to grow”, February 20) is perhaps to be expected from “the professor who shoots from the hip”.
The public sector in Wales is proportionately too large claims the professor. Well, if the private sector in any part of the country is small, then mathematically the public sector must be comparatively large, but it does not follow that it is too large.
Mr Jones-Evans is also distressed to learn that average wages in the public sector are now higher (or rather less low) than wages in the private sector, a reversal of the natural order of things, apparently. This inevitably follows from two decades in which the higher-paid private sector jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing have been abolished leaving a private-sector workforce increasingly dominated by low-paid retail and catering jobs. Whose fault is that I wonder?
If Professor Jones-Evans would take aim in the normal way instead of shooting from the hip then he would surely see that adding thousands of public sector workers to the ranks of the unemployed in Wales would only make the situation worse.
Roger Tanner, Rhiwbina, Cardiff
- Western Mail Letters, WalesOnline, February 24.