Infinite MonkeysThe Prof himself isn't the only one making excellent observations on the Professor Bainbridge blog. I found this courtroom interrogation tactic (which a Bainbridge reader caught Ben-Veniste using) awfully sneaky.
It's an old (and cheap) trick in litigation to ask a compound question, which is improper and to which an objection will be sustained. If defending counsel is asleep at the switch, the witness may not be quick enough to see both questions or will forget the first question by the time she finishes answering the second.The question before me now is: do I share it with the Rhetoric students at my school? I guess I'll have to, so they'll be wary of it in upcoming debates.The idea is to make the first question the damaging one and the second question one which the witness is likely to know and answer in an affirmative way, either by saying yes or by providing or confirming the information. Witnesses will almost always answer the last question first because it is recent and because it is one they can answer affirmatively. Most witnesses will either forget or bobble the first and damaging question.
Read the rest of the post, and the post that preceded it, for some details that most of us probably missed in the more mainstream reporting & commentary on the Rice testimony.
Oh, and for InfMonk David, I should mention this Bainbridge pointed out this story that's not only about Australian wines, Cuban cigars, Japanese chef Kazu, and a world class butcher, but also includes the word "Monkey" (but not as a food item).
UPDATE: A blog called Small Dead Animals (it has nothing to do with the "Monkey" in my last paragraph) has a side by side transcript comparison example of the coverage editing, plus a response from a CNN afilliate news director. (Hat tip: InstaPundit)
Posted by Brad at April 10, 2004 04:24 PM | TrackBack