GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin was much maligned last week for her answers to Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson.  Perhaps I should say "non-answers." 

Often Palin said, "I don't know, let me check on that and get back to you."  Or, something like that.

Here's a question: Why is that a bad answer?  Since when is not knowing an answer a bad thing?

Granted, Palin was flustered by possibly the worst news anchor on television today (you can guess which I mean - Couric or Gibson) and her performance was sub-par.  And, for that alone we should question her credentials for the Number Two spot in government.

But that's not my point.

I've been lucky enough to conduct media training sessions with executives and entrepreneurs helping them prep for interviews with all sorts of media outlets.  One of the main points I often spend a lot of time on is "don't fake it."  If you don't know an answer, don't try to make one up on the spot.  Stick to your message.  And, no matter how lucid you think it sounds in your head, don't try out an answer for the first time in a real interview setting.

You'd be amazed at how the most brilliant of managers are easily flustered and tripped up when pressed for explanations of what they just said.

How often do we as voters roll our eyes when politicians bluster and fumble through an answer when they clearly have no clue what they're talking about.  How many times have you yelled at the television, radio or computer: "You're not answering the question!"  I know I do almost every time I bother watching a politician pontificate.

It could very well be that Sarah Palin is NOT the best choice for VP.  I don't know.  But I do know that she should be congratulated for admitting to not knowing some answers.  Some say that shows naivete. 

I think it shows courage.