On the radio I heard a person say, “I’m glad the mayor is thinking of housing as the solution for homelessness.”  (Editor note: duh!)  She wasn’t being sarcastic and making a joke.  She was being a talking head that stays on message and tries not to say anything controversial.

I recently interviewed a candidate that also said alot of words without saying anything of substance.  He used cookie-cutter answers that filled up the time, but didn’t really let me know anything interesting.

Last year I worked with someone who talked and talked but never helped resolve an issue.  It was as-if they were a lion circling the point of a discussion like a weak anteleope, but never moving in for the kill.  They just kept circling.  Lots of movement, no action.

We all know people like this.  Politics are full of them.  Its safer to say nothing, but you won’t be put on TV if you don’t say SOMETHING.  So you talk in filler-speak.  You fill the time, but don’t say anything memorable.  The White House Press Secretary is a famous position for doing exactly this.  They are supposed to “not make news”.

What would the world be like if we couldn’t use filler-speak?  Better?  Worse?  I know one thing; it’s not fun to be in a conversation with someone who avoids saying something interesting.



Whatya think?