Fuel duty - an absolute skewering.
Discussion
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
His interruptive style shows he places little importance on an answer
Or perhaps an intolerance of BS.
t replies in one of his interviews? That's bullst. Most people interested in the difference can tell Jeremy Kyle from Jeremy Paxman, his audience is what it is.Some people seem to like gladiatorial interviews such as this one because politicians are hate figures but treating viewers as adults and interviewees with at least some respect throughout would be preferable.
He is however entitled to ask a question and get an answer. Most of the challenges occur when they don't answer the question. I am happy for him to put them under pressure and question their logic and rational. If the answer comes across as bullst why not challenge them? Tbh most of the time I agree with Paxman, so no problem from where I sit, regardless of Party Politics.
t why not challenge them? Tbh most of the time I agree with Paxman, so no problem from where I sit, regardless of Party Politics.chimster said:
He is however entitled to ask a question and get an answer.
Already agreed with that, which is why I posted a link to the Howard interview. He isn't entitlted to decide what viewers think of any reply. We will decide.chimster said:
Most of the challenges occur when they don't answer the question. I am happy for him to put them under pressure and question their logic and rationale.
Me too, but that means he needs at times to think of another question or angle, not bluster and spittlefleck people. chimster said:
If the answer comes across as bullst why not challenge them?
Already agree, it's how he does it that I posted about, since in reality his view of BS is irrelevant.t why not challenge them?chimster said:
Tbh most of the time I agree with Paxman, so no problem from where I sit, regardless of Party Politics.
Everything I've said has been regardless of Party Politics. Whether you or I agree with Paxman is irrelevant.Twincam16 said:
Part of the problem is PR. Ever since Alastair Campbell arrived using his school-bully approach to media relations, it seems to have become the norm to only be granted an interview once a PR bod has checked all the questions you're planning to ask, otherwise - no interview. And if you ask a question that wasn't on the list they will just refuse to answer.
The PR industry has become FAR too powerful for its own good. People get quite rightly worked up about the abuses of journalistic power shown up by Leveson, and the tabloid press really doesn't do freedom of speech any favours, but for many more serious journalists, PR gets in the way of them getting the story out.
Often, the words to the effect of 'this politician declined to speak to us' say more than they'd have got out of them anyway.
It's only powerful if journalists are weak. Simply say The Joe Blogs PR for MP X has refused the interview. Once they named as an individual and are accountable for their actions they can't work in the shadows.The PR industry has become FAR too powerful for its own good. People get quite rightly worked up about the abuses of journalistic power shown up by Leveson, and the tabloid press really doesn't do freedom of speech any favours, but for many more serious journalists, PR gets in the way of them getting the story out.
Often, the words to the effect of 'this politician declined to speak to us' say more than they'd have got out of them anyway.
Journalist shouldn't allowed people to be simply say a source / spokesmen said X.
Fittster said:
Journalist shouldn't allowed people to be simply say a source / spokesmen said X.
Well that's a different issue altogether.Journalists have to be able to protect their sources (one of the few successful defences against contempt of court charges), simply because livelihoods and sometimes lives can be placed at risk even if they do.
Take the recent exposes of care home abuse for example. Without the ongoing efforts of journalists working with people on the inside willing to spill the beans, the full story would never have got into the public domain. However, if the source had to be named as soon as the story broke, that person who was doing their job properly would end up sacked and discredited by the people they were trying to expose. Then the investigation would end prematurely and the journalists would never get the full story.
With crime stories it's even more important. Journalists often know the identities of police informants, many of whom you'd be surprised do not have their identities protected by law at that stage. If they had to identify the sources of evidence in crime stories, especially where gangs and murder is involved, they'd practically be writing their death warrant.
Same goes for corrupt companies. Whistleblowers are usually the ones doing their jobs properly, who want to go on doing their jobs properly after the corrupt individuals have been exposed and weeded out. Cite the source in the news article and you're setting a conscientious individual against their colleagues in a way that'll inevitably lead to their sacking, while merely insinuating allegations against the corrupt parties rather than presenting the evidence.
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
It's not for him to decide
It is imho, he's doing the interviewing, and I don't see why anyone should get away with fobbing us off. t to make up your mind that somebody is being evasive or refusing to answer? Newsnight viewers don't end up there by mistake when looking for The Simpsons.The obvious risk of Paxman deciding who gets away with it and who gets skewered is that issues which Paxman has strong views on and individuals or situations he dislikes will result in the usual ritual angry peacock display, others won't.
He's of no consequence, the story is the news - and when he puts himself across like he does then he is the story (this thread is an illustration of that) and it becomes theatre not current affairs since the interviewee is often inhibited or prevented from completing an answer before the next question arrives from the rude git in the other chair. Civility should prevail.
The fact is Paxman is a popular figure who politicians do care about, when Fern Britton interviewed Tony Blair all those years ago we ridiculed the whole thing, for example. Paxman has been on Newsnight for so long now he almost is the show, the producers dropped the weather segment when he bluntly refused to do it so they obviously think he's a big fish. In this climate I think people enjoy seeing politicians insulted on television.
turbobloke said:
They won't get away with anything as viewers can see and hear for themselves. Are you saying that you need Paxman to go apest to make up your mind that somebody is being evasive or refusing to answer? Newsnight viewers don't end up there by mistake when looking for The Simpsons.
Appreciate what you're saying and apest to make up your mind that somebody is being evasive or refusing to answer? Newsnight viewers don't end up there by mistake when looking for The Simpsons.t, no. But I think a lot of the career politicians need showing up for what they are - inadequate.turbobloke said:
They won't get away with anything as viewers can see and hear for themselves. Are you saying that you need Paxman to go apest to make up your mind that somebody is being evasive or refusing to answer? Newsnight viewers don't end up there by mistake when looking for The Simpsons.
The obvious risk of Paxman deciding who gets away with it and who gets skewered is that issues which Paxman has strong views on and individuals or situations he dislikes will result in the usual ritual angry peacock display, others won't.
Plenty of us have the same views as him. When the answer to a sensible question has people at home incredulous I don't see why the interviewer shouldn't reflect that.t to make up your mind that somebody is being evasive or refusing to answer? Newsnight viewers don't end up there by mistake when looking for The Simpsons.The obvious risk of Paxman deciding who gets away with it and who gets skewered is that issues which Paxman has strong views on and individuals or situations he dislikes will result in the usual ritual angry peacock display, others won't.
0000 said:
Plenty of us have the same views as him. When the answer to a sensible question has people at home incredulous I don't see why the interviewer shouldn't reflect that.
Well that's the point isn't it. We all hate it when a politician fails to give a simple answer to a simple question and Paxman keeps pushing them until they either give an answer or end up looking stupid due to their inability to answer a simple question.Chloe Smith is a case in point, Paxman asked her several times to name a department which had supposedly underspent and she couldn't do it. He asked 'name a department' and she just said 'theres been departmental underspends' which would have most people at home asking 'like where?' and Paxman put that to her.
Nothing wrong with that.
0000 said:
Plenty of us have the same views as him.
At times me too, but the numbers don't matter nor do our personal opinions. There's plenty in a lynch mob, plenty doesn't make anything right though unless it's votes within inappropriate electoral boundaries. 0000 said:
When the answer to a sensible question has people at home incredulous I don't see why the interviewer shouldn't reflect that.
Looking incredulous at somebody is hardly the limits of a Paxmaning. If the answers being given are inadequate let's have more of the answers and less aggressive interruptive questioning, that way we might get to see more evidence of incompetence, or is it inadequate briefing, or is it sending out a junior who doesn't know cross-departmental data and can't make answers up on the spot for obvious reasons, or is it really a scandal, or is it something else.All we 'learnt' from that interview which we didn't know before was that an experienced assertive personality on home turf can verbally hector and harass an inexperienced less assertive personality playing away, but that's hardly news or learning for plenty of us
turbobloke said:
All we 'learnt' from that interview which we didn't know before was that an experienced assertive personality on home turf can verbally hector and harass an inexperienced less assertive personality playing away, but that's hardly news or learning for plenty of us
I'd say we learnt a bit more than that:- Chloe Smith isn't a good liar.
- Nor is she good at obfuscation.
- Chloe Smith is a Minister but isn't told very much about what is going on in government
- Chloe Smith is fed her opinion on a need to know basis
- Chloe Smith's opinion last month doesn't necessarily have any similarities with its 'this month' counterpart
- The transport secretary isn't involved in fuel tax policy
- The chancellor can reverse a decision in the morning and present it as a fait accompli to the cabinet, his party, parliament, and the nation all at the same time, that afternoon.
- Said same chancellor won't discuss that decision with Paxman, and will happily send an apprentice bullstter to draw the fire in his place.
Several items in that list don't paint the picture you claim, or they represent pure assertion. Either way they're easy to pull apart even without doing a Paxo.
Very little if anything of what you claimed became apparent because Paxman did his thing.
- Chloe Smith isn't a good liar.
- Nor is she good at obfuscation.
- Chloe Smith is a Minister but isn't told very much about what is going on in government
- Chloe Smith is fed her opinion on a need to know basis
- Chloe Smith's opinion last month doesn't necessarily have any similarities with its 'this month' counterpart
- The transport secretary isn't involved in fuel tax policy
- The chancellor can reverse a decision in the morning and present it as a fait accompli to the cabinet, his party, parliament, and the nation all at the same time, that afternoon.
- Said same chancellor won't discuss that decision with Paxman, and will happily send an apprentice bullstter to draw the fire in his place.
Very little if anything of what you claimed became apparent because Paxman did his thing.
wormburner said:
I'd say we learnt a bit more than that:
It shows the quality of Paxman that he did indeed bring all this out. Indeed, there can be few who have not seen Cameron's method of government for waht it is: a shambles.- Chloe Smith isn't a good liar.
- Nor is she good at obfuscation.
- Chloe Smith is a Minister but isn't told very much about what is going on in government
- Chloe Smith is fed her opinion on a need to know basis
- Chloe Smith's opinion last month doesn't necessarily have any similarities with its 'this month' counterpart
- The transport secretary isn't involved in fuel tax policy
- The chancellor can reverse a decision in the morning and present it as a fait accompli to the cabinet, his party, parliament, and the nation all at the same time, that afternoon.
- Said same chancellor won't discuss that decision with Paxman, and will happily send an apprentice bullstter to draw the fire in his place.
Paxman also got the show put on national newspapers, with accusations of lamb to the slaughter and cowardly behanviour by the government.
Journalism isn't reporting, or at least shouldn't be. It must be about digging and exposing, everthing that Paxman did on that show.
It was painful to watch yet compulsive viewing. She didn't, in one way, deserve the grilling but as a representative of a government that kicked her into the limelight to defend the undefensible, she had it coming.
Smith learned a lot from the encounter, at least I hope she did. I bet she won't go unprepared into such an interview ever again. I think it is to her credit that she's a poor liar.
Some of the points you raised are indictments of the government.
Paxman is Newsnight and because of him it is worth watching. His job is not just to put questions to the subject and accept the answer. That's what a reporter does. A journalist on the other hand goes for the truth, and the truth in this instance is as you described it, WB. Newsnight showed how the government, our government, governs. Excellent work.
Derek Smith said:
It shows the quality of Paxman that he did indeed bring all this out.
As McEnroe once said, you cannot be serious. Superb reasoning by assertion though, full marks there.
Virtually nothing of that list was brought out, as even the most cursory review will show.
The reason persistent pressure in interviews doesn't work is because it isn't very good at eliciting the information you seek.
It's why very few selection processes use pressure interviews these days compared to the 70s 80s and even 90s. To spend a moment off-topic, if there's a role which requires high level thought and action under severe and/or persistent stress, it's far better to use a valid and reliable psychometric instrument such as the DMT. On topic, it takes more than merely operating on the aggressive side of assertive to carry out a successful newsroom interview unless the aim is pure gladiatorial theatre. Which is precisely what that list of assertions and supposition demonstrates.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c[/urk]
A search on YouTube under 'Paxman is god' revealed.
The repetition of questions is a simple and straightforward method of demonstrating that politicians do not want to answer questions. The conclusion is rather obvious.
Whilst it is headed Funny Videos, it is in fact not. It shows that MPs hold the public in a degree of contempt. Blears ran up a total of 9 refusals.
Did you threaten to over-rule = Baron something or other ran up a total of 12.
All these MPs would have got a free ride from presenters.
A search on YouTube under 'Paxman is god' revealed.
The repetition of questions is a simple and straightforward method of demonstrating that politicians do not want to answer questions. The conclusion is rather obvious.
Whilst it is headed Funny Videos, it is in fact not. It shows that MPs hold the public in a degree of contempt. Blears ran up a total of 9 refusals.
Did you threaten to over-rule = Baron something or other ran up a total of 12.
All these MPs would have got a free ride from presenters.
martin84 said:
David Cameron - born in 1966 - left Eton in 1984 - did research work for his godfather and Tory MP - went to Oxford -joined Conservative Research Department in 1988 - left that post in 1993 - became Advisor to the Chancellor - then Advisor to Home Secretary - Corperate Affairs Director at Carlton in the late 90s - elected MP for Witney - Leader of the Tory party - Prime Minister - laughably preaches to people about the virtues of going to work when he's never had a proper job.
When Chloe Smith is in her mid 40s I doubt her CV will be much lighter.
Looking at how shifty, disingenuous, conceited and falsely confident - indeed, at times aggressively assertive she was in her blatant refusal to come clean and attempts to shift the focus - I reckon we might be seeing her as party chair or deputy pm. Has the credentials worn by her peers and so typical of those we now get to lead us.When Chloe Smith is in her mid 40s I doubt her CV will be much lighter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff