It's one of the truths of life: the less people know, the louder they shout. Sometimes it's about the scores of a footy match and it doesn't matter much if they have their barney. But sometimes it concerns more serious topics, and then they start to threaten the very society we live in.
You may wonder why I bring this up under marketing, but it's about a group that is particularly poor in the skills of communicating their complaints to the public. Our judges.
They face issues that are thrown at them through political advertising, lobby groups, resident associations and the police - yet most of the time they are stoically silent in return.
If they speak up, all hell breaks loose. On Monday this paper reported letters from Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and County Court Chief Judge Michael Rozenes suggesting that Victorian government sentencing law changes would have "a dramatically negative impact on the administration of justice". In other words, don't take the lid off Pandora's box because the consequences that flow out will be disastrous.
Already our prisons are overflowing, with the population jumping by 11 per cent last year alone. Now the tighter restrictions on parole and suspended sentencing, and increased penalties for crimes, have forced more and more offenders into the overcrowded cages - even shipping containers.
When our leading judges asked for some sensible discussion of these matters the response was howls of derision from a vocal section of the population. "Who do they think they are?" "Sack the judges!" "They are letting criminals free". Just reading the comments below Monday's article, you could picture the mob with flaming torches.
Are judges such bad judges? In my journalistic career I reported on courts for several years, both in England and Australia. It gave me a chance to study judges and magistrates at their work, day after day administering justice to an often unappealing line of offenders.
Some offences - speeding, drunken affray - were dealt with swiftly. But with serious offences - murder, assault and battery, burglary - the judge would subject the facts, the witnesses and the perpetrator to lengthy questioning. The case was examined minutely and no aspect was avoided.
I would find myself thinking, in the press box, "He's so obviously guilty, just convict him and get this over with." But no, judges do not take short cuts, they would pursue the evidence to the end.
Then came the difficult decision. Lock him up for two years and have him emerge a fully-formed criminal? Or base his correction on strict curfews and educational requirements that might help him - and his family - return him to the straight and narrow? Any of the scores of possibilities between these extremes, with the aim of fishing him or her out of the criminal stream they had taken.
I saw how much work and advice a judge would take in making the decision. Then a few days later see the commentators, shock jocks, talk-backers and barroom lawyers decrying how wrong, light, inadequate the sentence was. All declared by experts who had not been in the court or even read the transcript.
I've got to tell you I've never found judges soft or pushovers. They are highly intelligent with flinty perception. In fact much smarter than the average politician. They just need a good marketing campaign.
