Interview or Interrogation. Is TV overstepping its remit.

[Hornspieler]

I am increasingly aware of unneccesary interruption of guest speakers by TV interviewers. Jon Snow, Kirsty Wirk, Andrew Marr and Jeremy Paxman are typical examples.

They invite someone onto their programme to answer queries and give explanations, but, if the guest is not saying what they want to hear, they will interrupt them in mid sentence and ask another question. Such rudeness and bullying tactics are becoming more common in TV interviews and often prevent a guest from completing what is a reasonable explanation but not what the interviewer expected to hear.

What do others think about this sort of behaviour? I can recall one or two instances in the past where the interviewee has actually had the guts to say "Well if you don't wish to hear what I am saying, there is no point in wasting my time here." - and walking out of the studio.

Are TV interviewers too intent on asserting their own views and personalities upon the viewing public to show a little common courtesy to an invited guest?

What do others think?

[Pianorak]

Sorry, can't comment on TV interviewers, but R4's Eddie Mair can be rather too abrupt, not to say rude, for my liking when interviewing people.

[salymap]

And John Humphrys, in the morning on R4 seems to have bad days when the person interviewed isn't allowed to get into the conversation at all.

I don't listen to much TV at the moment either, sorry HS.

[eighthobstruction]

Politicians are so slick and practised at avoiding questions, answering expediently, juggling the truth, jerrymangering, obfuscating, being disingenuous etc that intervention is regularly needed....yes it is annoying in blatant cases, but in the round it is very necessary, very, very necesssary....of getting to heart of things. I know what Pianorak means ref Eddie Mair, he likes to bowl a wrong un, but on the whole despite his need for mirth he is generally a good interviewer, especially of the public in distress....

[amateur51]

I am increasingly aware of unneccesary interruption of guest speakers by TV interviewers. Jon Snow, Kirsty Wirk, Andrew Marr and Jeremy Paxman are typical examples.

They invite someone onto their programme to answer queries and give explanations, but, if the guest is not saying what they want to hear, they will interrupt them in mid sentence and ask another question. Such rudeness and bullying tactics are becoming more common in TV interviews and often prevent a guest from completing what is a reasonable explanation but not what the interviewer expected to hear.

What do others think about this sort of behaviour? I can recall one or two instances in the past where the interviewee has actually had the guts to say "Well if you don't wish to hear what I am saying, there is no point in wasting my time here." - and walking out of the studio.

Are TV interviewers too intent on asserting their own views and personalities upon the viewing public to show a little common courtesy to an invited guest?

What do others think?

I think you've got a fair point Hornspieler but many years ago politicians, prominently Margaret Thatcher, beefed up their game & went in for special training to assist them in dealing with interviewers. This led to their obfuscating until the interview time had come to an end, resulting in infuriated viewers and belligerent interviewers who went on the attack even further.

It's not new of course; Harold Macmillan spotted almost at once that interviews on television were much more potentially treacherous than those done on radio. Tt was John Nott who famously stalked out of his interview with Sir Robin Day live on television. If you watch this clip, Day actually looks rather pleased with himself as Nott struggles to release himself from his microphone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3SpXXYTHY

For my money, the best current interviewer is Justin Webb on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He listens to the answers and comes up with questions related to the answer, rather than pursuing a pre-determined and aggressive line. Stephen Sackur and Zeinab Bedawi on BBC's HARDtalk both do well too, partly because their interviews are of an extended length.

[johnb]

They invite someone onto their programme to answer queries and give explanations, but, if the guest is not saying what they want to hear, they will interrupt them in mid sentence and ask another question. Such rudeness and bullying tactics are becoming more common in TV interviews and often prevent a guest from completing what is a reasonable explanation but not what the interviewer expected to hear.

The difficulty that interviewers face is that, on tricky subjects, politicians often adamantly refuse to answer questions but insist on giving their pre-prepared mini-speeches.

My problem with interviewers is that most of them are very badly prepared, know next to nothing about the subject concerned and mainly rely on a checklist of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions which they feel they have to go through come hell or high water. (One of the worst in this regard in Kirsty Wark.)

Andrew Neil isn't to everyone's taste but some of the interviews he does on Daily Politics are pretty enlightening, mostly because his research and knowledge of the subject is streets ahead of other interviewers.

[amateur51]

Andrew Neil isn't to everyone's taste but some of the interviews he does on Daily Politics are pretty enlightening, mostly because his research and knowledge of the subject is streets ahead of other interviewers.

I agree, johnb - and he does have the advantage of that spectacularly bad hairpiece that must put most interviewees off their guard

[amateur51]

Politicians are so slick and practised at avoiding questions, answering expediently, juggling the truth, jerrymangering, obfuscating, being disingenuous etc that intervention is regularly needed....yes it is annoying in blatant cases, but in the round it is very necessary, very, very necesssary....of getting to heart of things. I know what Pianorak means ref Eddie Mair, he likes to bowl a wrong un, but on the whole despite his need for mirth he is generally a good interviewer, especially of the public in distress....

After his interview with Francis Maude, Eddie Mair became my hero!

http://audioboo.fm/boos/155599-eddie-mair-putting-francis-maude-on-the-spot-what-volunteering-do-you-do

[Petrushka]

My idea of the ideal interviewer is one who puts the questions that we would ask if we were there to ask them. In this respect, I find Jon Snow on Channel 4 News to be the best of those currently on air. I find Kirsty Wark quite obnoxious and watching her does my BP no good. Susannah Reid on BBC Breakfast isn't much better. Her constant interrupting of Ed Balls the other morning had the unusual effect of making me feel for him.

[Roslynmuse]

Susannah Reid on BBC Breakfast isn't much better. Her constant interrupting of Ed Balls the other morning had the unusual effect of making me feel for him.

The tabloids would have a headline field-day with that:

"Petrushka Feels For Balls"

[VodkaDilc]

My idea of the ideal interviewer is one who puts the questions that we would ask if we were there to ask them. In this respect, I find Jon Snow on Channel 4 News to be the best of those currently on air. I find Kirsty Wark quite obnoxious and watching her does my BP no good. Susannah Reid on BBC Breakfast isn't much better. Her constant interrupting of Ed Balls the other morning had the unusual effect of making me feel for him.

Jon Snow is certainly among the very best. His attempts to get a response from Cameron about his unwanted bus pass etc last week was a classic example. I think the interviewers all know that the politicians have done the essential 'media training', so all know the ways of avoiding answering. So perhaps aggressive questioning is justified. There's also the complication of live interviews. It is, perhaps, justifiable for a politician to be cut short if only a short time-slot is available. Otherwise they would waffle until time was up - probably their intention in the first place.

[Petrushka]

The tabloids would have a headline field-day with that:

"Petrushka Feels For Balls"

[amateur51]

Jon Snow is certainly among the very best. His attempts to get a response from Cameron about his unwanted bus pass etc last week was a classic example. I think the interviewers all know that the politicians have done the essential 'media training', so all know the ways of avoiding answering. So perhaps aggressive questioning is justified. There's also the complication of live interviews. It is, perhaps, justifiable for a politician to be cut short if only a short time-slot is available. Otherwise they would waffle until time was up - probably their intention in the first place.

The (in)famous Paxman interview with Michael Howard, where he asked the same question fourteen times arose in part because Howard clearly did not want to answer the question as posed and because Paxman's editor was yelling in his ear telling him that he had to play for time because of problems with the next item, I think.

[mercia]

Tt was John Nott who famously stalked out of his interview with Sir Robin Day live on television.

RD really proved there that it doesn't pay to be rude - you end up with no interview

anyone remember an encounter between Peter Snow and Arthur Scargill (on Newsnight I think) where the latter repeatedly asked PS if he had read a certain report - to which Mr Snow eventually had to admit he hadn't - which I think proved that you really have to be sure of your facts before making any accusations

[MrGongGong]

The (in)famous Paxman interview with Michael Howard, where he asked the same question fourteen times arose in past because Howard clearly did not want to answer the question as posed and because Paxman's editor was yelling in his ear telling him that he had to play for time because of problems with the next item, I think.

A classic
surely they protest too much
but the chances of an honest answer to any question are long gone
the Andrew Mitchell
"I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not use the words attributed to me" nonsense is a classic case

YES or NO would suffice ..........