A trend I've noticed recently in article writing is to talk in the way that politicians popularised when answering questions in 'interviews', but in fact just have a pre-prepared point to make. It's incredibly annoying, lazy, and I suspect hides many a flawed argument. Here's why:
See? How irritating was that? there are other forms too, and we need an answer to why it's used and why it should stop.
There it is again. My answer is to address the reasons it is being used, and why it should stop.
It's like a grammatical construct specifically for putting an air of self-importance into your writing:
"I have seen the problem, yes, and there is no need to bother yourselves with all the various, so-called 'sides' to the debate, I have the answer, and I'm going to state it right now, right here, in a simple way for you simple people to understand. Here it is, here's the answer..."
I can see why it has become popular, in fact I'm concerned that if I read back through my blog I might have done it myself. It's an incredibly easy way to do two things. Firstly, it gives your argument a cohesive structure. State a problem, state that you're going to provide an answer, and then state that answer. It's like Powerpoint Presentation 101, in written form. As an aside for anyone who doesn't know, saying what you're about to talk about, talking about it, then saying what you talked about is a great way to bore your audience. Anyway, back to the case in point. So it gives you structure, but secondly, it also gives you a false sense of logical reasoning. It's a structure that implies your answer is in fact the answer, and not just one possible answer, that is following the question. It implies a simplicity that may or may not be valid.
In speech, it gives the politician a method of rephrasing the question put to them in a way that matches the answer they want to give, and it gives them time to construct it that answer. What is even more interesting is that often, after stating very clearly that an answer or solution is about to come from their lips, the resulting statement will in fact not be a cohesive answer or solution at all. Whilst the first of these - the time to construct a reply - may be forgivable, the second is not, and yet it works because of the feeling of authority the construct gives, a sleight of hand with the tongue that slips opinion past as fact.
The difficulty and irony of discussing a writing technique that could be described as arrogant without sounding, well, arrogant, is not lost on me, but I see no other way. And of course, coming up with a solution to this problem could sound even more arrogant.
I wouldn't dare suggest such a thing...