Interview or Interrogation. Is TV overstepping its remit.

[Serial_Apologist]

If (c) or (d) perhaps we should be looking out for Savile Row (Law) Suits...

[jayne lee wilson]

I don't want to obstruct free speech or shut anyone down, but if you use the Jimmy Savile affair as a source of humour, try to bear in mind the individual distress and damage he has caused to so many YOUNG people who had no chance of fighting back or being believed. Because of the pain, the invasion, the isolation, the lack of acknowledgement or redress, most will have been affected for their whole lives...

[salymap]

I don't want to obstruct free speech or shut anyone down, but if you use the Jimmy Savile affair as a source of humour, try to bear in mind the individual distress and damage he has caused to so many YOUNG people who had no chance of fighting back or being believed. Because of the pain, the invasion, the isolation, the lack of acknowledgement or redress, most will have been affected for their whole lives...

Well said, Jayne

[Hornspieler]

I don't want to obstruct free speech or shut anyone down, but if you use the Jimmy Savile affair as a source of humour, try to bear in mind the individual distress and damage he has caused to so many YOUNG people who had no chance of fighting back or being believed. Because of the pain, the invasion, the isolation, the lack of acknowledgement or redress, most will have been affected for their whole lives...

Absolutely right, Jayne.

When I was still at school (age 16) I was asked to escort a girl, probably aged 18 or 19, from an evening meeting of the Salisbury Chamber Music Society to the Bus Station ( a distance of less than a mile), and see her safely on to her bus. Her father was waiting to meet her at her village bus stop. I was told that she had been savagely raped within a hundred yards of her house a month earlier.
She clung to my arm and I could feel her trembling like a leaf.

Not a subject to joke about! I suggest that if that is all you have to say on the subject of this thread, you take your "humour" elsewhere.

HS

[Serial_Apologist]

Fools rush in - referring to myself.

[LHC]

Getting back to the original topic, one of the problems with a confrontational interview technique is that it often appears to have been adopted for its own sake rather than as a means of getting to the truth.

Almost all TV interviewers seem to think that a successful interview is one in which they interrupt and brow beat their opponent, even if the interviewee was unable to say anything of substance. I suspect that this often masks a shocking lack of preparation on the interviewers part. They will usually only want to discuss one issue and will push this relentlessly. Because they have little or no understanding of contextual or related matters, they are unable to pursue a line of questioning that responds to what the interviewee actually said and are stuck with the pre-determined questions they have (this is one reason why they often ask for information that has already been provided).

Although they always now adopt this approach with politicians, the idea that confrontation is the only way to conduct an interview is infecting other issues as well. As Graham Linehan noted when he appeared on the Today programme, we are encouraged more and more to see debate and discussion as merely the clash of diametrically opposed views:

"The style of debate practised by the Today programme poisons discourse in this country. It is an arena where there are no positions possible except for diametrically opposed ones, where nuance is not permitted and where politicians are forced into defensive positions of utter banality. None of it is any good for the national conversation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/today-programme-the-ladykillers-graham-linehan

[Serial_Apologist]

Getting back to the original topic, one of the problems with a confrontational interview technique is that it often appears to have been adopted for its own sake rather than as a means of getting to the truth.

Almost all TV interviewers seem to think that a successful interview is one in which they interrupt and brow beat their opponent, even if the interviewee was unable to say anything of substance. I suspect that this often masks a shocking lack of preparation on the interviewers part. They will usually only want to discuss one issue and will push this relentlessly. Because they have little or no understanding of contextual or related matters, they are unable to pursue a line of questioning that responds to what the interviewee actually said and are stuck with the pre-determined questions they have (this is one reason why they often ask for information that has already been provided).

Although they always now adopt this approach with politicians, the idea that confrontation is the only way to conduct an interview is infecting other issues as well. As Graham Linehan noted when he appeared on the Today programme, we are encouraged more and more to see debate and discussion as merely the clash of diametrically opposed views:

"The style of debate practised by the Today programme poisons discourse in this country. It is an arena where there are no positions possible except for diametrically opposed ones, where nuance is not permitted and where politicians are forced into defensive positions of utter banality. None of it is any good for the national conversation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...graham-linehan

[scottycelt]

Fundamentally dishonest and hope he looses his seat

Well you would, wouldn't you?

I hold no brief for the likes of Mr Mitchell, I have come across plenty like him with a similar haughty attitude to those they think are quite beneath themselves. He deserved everything he got at the time.

Nevertheless he did apologise to the police (eventually) and that surely should be the end of the matter. We all say foolish things from time to time that we later regret. What the heck does it really matter what his actual words were? He was rude and disrepectful to police officers, and he's now most unlikely ever to make the same error again.

The Police Federation is making a huge mountain out of a tiny little molehill and its calling for Mitchell's sacking is absurd. Has it really nothing better to do?

It is now, of course, far more about petty politics than the actual incident itself, imo.

[John Shelton]

Nevertheless he did apologise to the police (eventually) and that surely should be the end of the matter. We all say foolish things from time to time that we later regret. What the heck does it really matter what his actual words were? He was rude and disrepectful to police officers, and he's now most unlikely ever to make the same error again.

As an experiment, the next time you see a police officer (or police 'officer') go up to said 'officer' (or officer) and call them something rude. Don't forget to report back here whenever you are at liberty to do so.

[amateur51]

As an experiment, the next time you see a police officer (or police 'officer') go up to said 'officer' (or officer) and call them something rude. Don't forget to report back here whenever you are at liberty to do so.

Exactly!

Throw the twerp onto the back benches where he belongs. That'll tighten his trap for him

[MrGongGong]

Nevertheless he did apologise to the police (eventually) and that surely should be the end of the matter. We all say foolish things from time to time that we later regret. What the heck does it really matter what his actual words were? He was rude and disrepectful to police officers, and he's now most unlikely ever to make the same error again.
.

I'm not counting on it
and actually it does matter what his actual words were
because thats what was offensive and he hasn't apologised for using the "actual" words just another slimy wriggle

[scottycelt]

I suspect our police-officers have had to endure much, much worse from the odd left-wing 'activist' on a demo than any right-wing twerp of a politician ... ' '

[John Shelton]

I suspect our police-officers have had to endure much, much worse from the odd left-wing 'activist' on a demo than any right-wing twerp of a politician ... ' '

That explains why they didn't put him in hospital.

[amateur51]

That explains why they didn't put him in hospital.

"The prisoner appears to have a black eye, Sergeant Hoskins"

"Yes m'Lud! He ... appears to have slipped on the steps down to the cells last night, m'Lud"

"Very well - we must do something about those steps lest someone gets seriously hurt, eh Sergeant?"

"Yes m'Lud, duly noted and thanking you kindly"

'Twas ever thus

[scottycelt]

Ah, we've suddenly reverted to type and are once again 'slagging-off' the police ...

Make up your minds, guys!

As I said, this continuing Mitchell farce is now clearly all about petty politics, nothing more or less ...