Two Maulings in One Day - Paxman AND Channel 4

[Flosshilde]

If the media really hoped to get any sort of clarification, thoughtful explanations, even apologies, ever, they would take the interview out of the gladiatorial studio arena of the soundbite.

Isn't it the politicians (& Coulson, & what's-his-name from Blair) who have created the sound-bite? They aren't interested in giving long, thoughtful, detailed explanations. If they are 'on the sofa with X' rather than in the hot seat with JP they just waffle, rather than give anything away, & the 'inteviewer' lets them get away with the contradictions & fibs.

[amateur51]

They have to know who to send the taxi round to, and Smith wouldn't have been the first name they would think of.

She did the job she was sent to do: to stonewall and not lose her cool. It's what they all do and have done since the days when I used to listen to Today and gave up because such interviews are so repetitive.

If the media really hoped to get any sort of clarification, thoughtful explanations, even apologies, ever, they would take the interview out of the gladiatorial studio arena of the soundbite.

Interviews like this aren't intended to hold politicians to account. Anyone who has been interviewed by the media knows how you can get bogged down in over elaborate explanations until you say something that can be misconstrued and you'll never recover. Trying to be open and honest isn't worth the candle even when you have nothing to defend or hide.

It's routine pilloryiing, not accountability. Not the way to go.

One day perhaps an interviewee will stop mid-interview and start doing balloon-modelling or close-up magic in the belief that these are actually more entertaining than watching some inept soul being kicked around a studio.

I do hope it happens in my lifetime

[Northender]

I disagree - I watch lots of interviews by Paxman and Guru-Murthy and others which are illuminating and get to the heart of the matter. It depends on the politician, and how they choose (or are briefed) to react. There was a real need to ask why the government had reversed direction on this, and she simply wouldn't address many of the questions put to her directly.

My thoughts precisely. Put simply, she's not (yet ) as good at her job as Paxman and Guru-Murthy are at theirs.

[amateur51]

Isn't it the politicians (& Coulson, & what's-his-name from Blair) who have created the sound-bite? They aren't interested in giving long, thoughtful, detailed explanations. If they are 'on the sofa with X' rather than in the hot seat with JP they just waffle, rather than give anything away, & the 'inteviewer' lets them get away with the contradictions & fibs.

Apologies if you've heard me refer to this before but somewhere on youtube there is the most marvellous piece of Pathe News-type film when PM Clement Attlee is off somewhere and as he walks towards his car the 'interviewer' says: "Do you have anything to say to the newsreels Prime Minister?"

And Attlee without breaking his stride says perfectly courteously "No thank you" and gets into his car.

Marvellous

What PR guru taught him that, do you think?

[Northender]

Apologies if you've heard me refer to this before but somewhere on youtube there is the most marvellous piece of Pathe News-type film when PM Clement Attlee is off somewhere and as he walks towards his car the 'interviewer' says: "Do you have anything to say to the newsreels Prime Minister?"

And Attlee without breaking his stride says perfectly courteously "No thank you" and gets into his car.

Marvellous

What PR guru taught him that, do you think?

Guru-Murthy's grandfather?

[amateur51]

Guru-Murthy's grandfather?

[Serial_Apologist]

I disagree - I watch lots of interviews by Paxman and Guru-Murthy and others which are illuminating and get to the heart of the matter. It depends on the politician, and how they choose (or are briefed) to react. There was a real need to ask why the government had reversed direction on this, and she simply wouldn't address many of the questions put to her directly.

She wasn't asked that by Paxo; she was repeatedly asked if and when she'd been informed about the government U-turn, and if not, why not. Completely unhelpful in getting to the crux of the issue, and a typical rhetorical line of irrrelevant questioning by Mr Sarkypants.

I'm with French Frank on this one.

[Pianorak]

. . . I'm with French Frank on this one.

. . . and so am I.

Apparently Edward Heath was the despair of interviewers with his one-syllable replies, i.e. Yes and/or No.

[LHC]

I'm sure she must have been extensively briefed and given practice sessions beforehand. Maybe she was given an offer she couldn't (or thought she couldn't, or really, really, really didn't want to) refuse about doing these interviews, so there might be bullying somewhere.

Or have I got it wrong, and she was dragged out of bed (or wherever) to give an impromptu interview about the change in policies about which she was aware might happen for some time, but not aware of the actual date, without having time to consult with (or BE consulted with!) others involved? Sometimes interviews with JP are at pretty short notice, and they do send a taxi round.

Being mauled by Paxman is a rite of passage for politicians now. Although an unedifying watch, she did better than Swain in the Thick of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6phFQENkpII&feature=player_embedded

As that clip suggests, politicians will be briefed beforehand, but still come over as unprepared once they are put on the spot.

I would also agree with the comments that Paxman's line of questioning wasn't designed to elicit an illuminating answer about the policy. His concentration on when she was told about the change was clearly intended to embarrass her and the government. To that extent, Paxman achieved what he wanted to.

[amateur51]

It's routine pilloryiing, not accountability. Not the way to go.

Just a different form of PMQs unfortunately.

Some institution needs to be created whereby the public and its representatives (MPs) are able to hold politicians effectively to account. Not necessarily to humiliate them (tho that can be fun) but to identify what's gone right, what's gone wrong, why, and how to do things differently if need be.

When I held a grant from the Department of Education & Science light years ago I was regularly and frequently held to account by civil servants about expenditure and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate about progress. It was slightly intimidating at first but never less than useful and I genuinely believe that we all learned something useful from the process.

The snag is that today politicians feel they have to be 'above' accountability - so communications are made on private e-mail accounts etc. The Leveson Inquiry is teaching us some mightily important (and pretty expensive but necessary) lessons

[french frank]

I'm with French Frank on this one.

The phone rang and prevented me posting my follow-up, which began something like: 'I suppose the difference is that, in a general sense, I'm on the side of the politicians.'

I was then trying to explain what I meant, but in Newsnight terms it would have been a 'Now get out of that one, ff '

Fortunately, after 15 minutes on the phone, I thought better of it and junked it

More thoughts here.

Further thoughts on that article: It suggests that the media inquisitors have a much easier job nowadays when the situation has been reversed from what it was. Interviewers were young, politicians old.

[amateur51]

More thoughts here.

Further thoughts on that article: It suggests that the media inquisitors have a much easier job nowadays when the situation has been reversed from what it was. Interviewers were young, politicians old.

Even more remarkable than that, french frank. The articles asserts that: " This raises the fascinating question - are the BBC's top political interviewers getting too damned old in an era when politicians are getting younger?"

I've got a call in to Prof. Brian Cox to see if he can explain that to me

[mangerton]

Just a different form of PMQs unfortunately.

Some institution needs to be created whereby the public and its representatives (MPs) are able to hold politicians effectively to account. Not necessarily to humiliate them (tho that can be fun) but to identify what's gone right, what's gone wrong, why, and how to do things differently if need be.

Some parliamentary committees do a good job of telling ministers and senior civil servants where they get off.

Margaret Hodge in the Public Accounts Committee springs to mind in this connection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15630606

[amateur51]

Some parliamentary committees do a good job of telling ministers and senior civil servants where they get off.

Margaret Hodge in the Public Accounts Committee springs to mind in this connection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15630606

Cheers mangerton - Sir Humphrey humphed!

[french frank]

" This raises the fascinating question - are the BBC's top political interviewers getting too damned old in an era when politicians are getting younger?"

Humphrys - 68; Paxman - 62. Given the BBC's notorious ageism, why are they still being employed? Oh, 'ang on. No. scrub that - we know the answer, don't we ?

If you think the main purpose of a political interview is to 'attack' a politician, give them a hard time, if necessary ridicule and humiliate them, Paxman does well. If you think it's to succeed in drawing out information from them, rather than cause them to stonewall the questions (so that people can draw whatever conclusions fit with their existing opinions), then Paxman is NBG. Perhaps he just asks the wrong questions?