Interview or Interrogation. Is TV overstepping its remit.

[gurnemanz]

It is particularly annoying when the interviewee appears to be about to say something quite interesting but is interrupted so you never find out what it was.
Sometimes interviewers seem to be more pre-occupied with thinking about what they are going to say next rather than listening to the answer they have received. I have sometimes noticed an interviewer asking for information that has already been given.

A blast from the past:
"We interviewers are more than a match for the likes of you, Two Sheds"

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

[Ferretfancy]

The worst transgressor I ever met when I worked on current affairs programmes was Harold Williamson. He usually interviewed people who were not politicians, but distressed members of the public trying to cope with difficult situations. His technique was to ask a " How did you feel when your family were killed?" type of question, and then sit back silently and wait for the interviewee to break down. David Dimbleby said that this was unforgivable, and that every interviewer should always have supplementary questions prepared.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that on news programmes the people who should really be facing the journalists are the ones who are reported as not being available, or refuse. Channel 4 always mention this and allow the viewers to form their own opinion. This has happened quite a lot recently in respect of Hillsborough and the Savile affair.

[John Wright]

I'm with the interviewers - if the interviewee is avoiding the issue, not answering the question. The Mitchell plebs thing is an example of a subject that has gone on too long because the questions don't get answered - the man clearly told lies to the press early on so it's justifiable to keep asking him and others what DID he say and then eventually we can ask him 'did you (at first) lie to the prime minister?' Easy questions to answer aren't they?

[mangerton]

As so often, there was more than a grain of truth in the "Yes minister" or
"Yes PM" episode when Hacker was being schooled for an interview with "Ludo". Ludovic Kennedy appeared in that episode. Generally speaking I think that
the rougher ride politicians get, the better.

[Extended Play]

I'm all for giving politicians a rough ride -- but the confrontational interview doesn't "work" for me when what is needed is more than a "yes or no" answer because the issue at hand is complicated. This interviewing technique is based on the assumption that the topic can be reduced to black and white terms; the nuances and shades of grey are ignored because they don't fit the aggressive approach. The resulting ding-dong might be briefly entertaining, but is rarely illuminating.

If the intention is to "trap" the politician into admitting a mistake or questionable judgment or inconsistency, the interviewer is far more likely to succeed by being thoroughly prepared (I do agree with johnb about this). He or she needs to be armed with relevant facts. The politician usually arrives well briefed; the interviewer must be well briefed too. The clip posted by amateur51 (thank you) contains a good example, with Eddie Mair dropping in an apposite quote from the Tory manifesto to deny Francis Maude wriggle-room. That's the way to do it, and Eddie Mair is good at it.

Or you can lead the politician to what I think of as the "negative side". I once heard Evan Davis on Today use this ploy in the most gentle, but effective, way. He was interviewing a government minister -- from the Home Office, I think, but can't be sure. Anyway, she explained that she'd reached a very difficult policy decision after wrestling for a long time with the pros and cons, which were finely balanced. That prompted Mr Davis to ask her to summarise the drawbacks of the decision -- an approach from which she couldn't easily run away, given what she'd just said.

[MrGongGong]

I'm all for giving politicians a rough ride -- but the confrontational interview doesn't "work" for me when what is needed is more than a "yes or no" answer because the issue at hand is complicated. .

Whilst this is often true
on the occasions when there is a simple YES/NO answer it would be nice to have one (as with the whole pleb thing !)
but i'm not holding my breath

[Petrushka]

The Mitchell plebs thing is an example of a subject that has gone on too long

This whole saga is bordering on the ludicrous. All Mitchell had to do was tell the truth, apologise for losing his temper and the thing would have been over the same weekend and would, by now, as has been so wonderfully put elsewhere, be buried under a mountain of Savile.

[MrGongGong]

All Mitchell had to do was tell the truth, apologise for losing his temper .

no chance matey

[Petrushka]

no chance matey

Too late now, yes, but if he had done that the same weekend that should quite easily have been the end of it. The fact that this is still rumbling on is beyond belief.

[MrGongGong]

Too late now, yes, but if he had done that the same weekend that should quite easily have been the end of it. The fact that this is still rumbling on is beyond belief.

Fundamentally dishonest and hope he looses his seat

[Serial_Apologist]

It is particularly annoying when the interviewee appears to be about to say something quite interesting but is interrupted so you never find out what it was.
Sometimes interviewers seem to be more pre-occupied with thinking about what they are going to say next rather than listening to the answer they have received. I have sometimes noticed an interviewer asking for information that has already been given.

This sums it up for me.

Andrew Neil has already been cited as an example of a well-prepared, well-briefed interviewer. He has, it's true, a clever way of catching interviewees off-balance by apparently having several follow-up questions up his sleeve in anticipation of specific answers, like a good prosecution barrister; the trouble is that one gets caught up with delight at seeing politicians etc being hung out to dry, and can easily overlook Andrew Neil's own political agenda. I no longer watch his Sunday morning TV programme, having rumbled this fact, and would doubtless have a few counter questions to direct at Mr Neil given his own record in the newspaper industry. (Why oh why did the BBC take him on??? Oh yes - that famous institutional left-wing bias must be the reason!)

Similar, albeit less straightforwardly substantiated political assumptions, can usually be detected behind lines of questioning; they are aplenty on the Andrew Marr show - at simple face value, for instance, the easy rides given Philip Hammond this morning and David Cameron last week, as compared with the unwarranted roasting of Ed Milliband 3 weeks ago.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Talking over people, as so many interviewers do, is indeed very rude, but it often happens when the politician is avoiding answering the question.

[eighthobstruction]

I have twice this weekend during current affairs/news talk, got the current Saville Enquiries mixed up with the original Saville Enquiry ref N Ireland....

[Serial_Apologist]

I have twice this weekend during current affairs/news talk, got the current Saville Enquiries mixed up with the original Saville Enquiry ref N Ireland....

Is Savile Row:

a) A terrace of houses in Spain?

b) A 12-tone series in an unknown piece by Roberto Gerhard?

c) An argument as to why the BBC did not to hold an enquiry into possible paedophile activity under its aegis in the 1970s?

or

d) A street in London's West End well known for its tailors' shops?

Answers should be sent to eighthobstruction, Full Member

[Roslynmuse]

.