Press conferences are supposed to work like this:
Person of interest stands before the media.
Media members ask questions of that person of interest that they believe will draw a response to entertain and satisfy the curiosity of the public.
Person of interest listens to questions, contemplates his or her response, and gives an informative response—just what that media member was looking for.
The public then takes in that response, which has been relayed to them by the media member, and all are better-informed and satisfied.
What actually happens:
Person of interest stands before the media. Sometimes. If they want to.
Media member asks a question that 90 percent of the time is completely ridiculous and would elicit a response that is either off-topic or of no interest to the majority of the public.
Even during that other 10 percent, the person of interest gives a response that is still either off-topic or totally and completely without substance.
The public takes in the "information" (term used loosely) relayed by the media and is left dumbstruck, frustrated, angry, pis—
Uh, you get the point.
But still, some are entertaining in their own right for one reason or another, and some more so than others.
Which ones are entertaining? And why? Well, unlike the aforementioned generic person of interest, I plan on being informative and satisfying your curiosity.