Andrew Neil - good bad and ugly
Discussion
bonerp said:
I'm amazed why anyone would agree to be interviewed by someones who won't let anyone get their point of view across! Watch him a couple of days ago and turned off as saw it as a waste of an hour of my life. He behaves like our politicians. Embarrassing.
He's not embarrassing. It's not the case that he won't let interviewees get their point across, rather, he won't let them evade his questions and simply churn out their pre-prepared soundbites. I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Edited by chemistry on Thursday 26th September 08:29
chemistry said:
He's not embarrassing. It's not the case that he won't let interviewees get their point across, rather, he won't let them evade his questions and simply churn out their pre-prepared soundbites.
I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Agreed, we need more like him. Whatever his political affiliations are, he has the same attitude towards anyone and doesn't let anyone get off with evading questions or using their slots as marketing/propaganda. A good journalist right there. I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Edited by chemistry on Thursday 26th September 08:29
chemistry said:
He's not embarrassing. It's not the case that he won't let interviewees get their point across, rather, he won't let them evade his questions and simply churn out their pre-prepared soundbites.
I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
I don't particularly follow any party or politician but not once was anyone able to get their point across even when they tried because he has a habit of not allowing the question to be answered before he moves onto the next. Maybe its his way of belittling the interviewee.I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Edited by chemistry on Thursday 26th September 08:29
I agree undoubtedly that politicians evade answering questions but often he fails to allow them to, even after he's squeezed them all he can.
chemistry said:
He's not embarrassing. It's not the case that he won't let interviewees get their point across, rather, he won't let them evade his questions and simply churn out their pre-prepared soundbites.
I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Why not simply 'prepared'?I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
bonerp said:
I don't particularly follow any party or politician but not once was anyone able to get their point across even when they tried because he has a habit of not allowing the question to be answered before he moves onto the next. Maybe its his way of belittling the interviewee.
I agree undoubtedly that politicians evade answering questions but often he fails to allow them to, even after he's squeezed them all he can.
I apologise for assuming that your comments had been motivated by the fact that Neil had skewered a representative from the party you support. My bad.I agree undoubtedly that politicians evade answering questions but often he fails to allow them to, even after he's squeezed them all he can.
In any event though, he doesn't come across to me as belittling his interviewees or not allowing them to make valid points, merely as a well prepared interviewer who doesn't allow his interviewees to dodge his questions and calls them out if they make statements that they can't back up (or are misleading, untrue, whatever).
I can't think of anyone 'better' in this sense, although I would agree that at times it can make uncomfortable viewing.
Zirconia said:
He does have a habit of dropping those awkward things called facts on people. Knowledge and prepared is what I get from his technique, and a way to come in announced with a counter point that can really fell someone from a high horse.
Last night's interview with the Labour guy was classic; Neil pointed out that their plan to limit uni places for private school kids to 7% was fundamentally flawed because by sixth form 15% of students are at private school. Thus, rather than 7% being a 'fair' proportion of private school kids going on to uni it would mean that over half of them wouldn't be able to get in.Clearly he (and the rest of his party?) had such a flawed grasp of the underling facts/stats that this came as news to him and the subsequent bluster that he spited trying to 'justify' a clearly ill thought out and unjustifiable proposal was priceless.
The earlier segment with the Conservative MP was equally awkward.
He's a mater of his art.
bonerp said:
chemistry said:
He's not embarrassing. It's not the case that he won't let interviewees get their point across, rather, he won't let them evade his questions and simply churn out their pre-prepared soundbites.
I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
I don't particularly follow any party or politician but not once was anyone able to get their point across even when they tried because he has a habit of not allowing the question to be answered before he moves onto the next. Maybe its his way of belittling the interviewee.I suspect that you are just a bit cross because he held a politician from the party/side you favour (whichever that is) to account and the failings of their policy/argument/thinking were exposed.
We need more interviewers like him.
Edited by chemistry on Thursday 26th September 08:29
I agree undoubtedly that politicians evade answering questions but often he fails to allow them to, even after he's squeezed them all he can.
chemistry said:
Last night's interview with the Labour guy was classic; Neil pointed out that their plan to limit uni places for private school kids to 7% was fundamentally flawed because by sixth form 15% of students are at private school. Thus, rather than 7% being a 'fair' proportion of private school kids going on to uni it would mean that over half of them wouldn't be able to get in.
Clearly he (and the rest of his party?) had such a flawed grasp of the underling facts/stats that this came as news to him and the subsequent bluster that he spited trying to 'justify' a clearly ill thought out and unjustifiable proposal was priceless.
The earlier segment with the Conservative MP was equally awkward.
He's a mater of his art.
Spolier..... Clearly he (and the rest of his party?) had such a flawed grasp of the underling facts/stats that this came as news to him and the subsequent bluster that he spited trying to 'justify' a clearly ill thought out and unjustifiable proposal was priceless.
The earlier segment with the Conservative MP was equally awkward.
He's a mater of his art.
I tend to catchup at a suitable time in the day. Probably wait till later, I have a few to catch up on.
Seeing the title of thread I'd assumed this was going to be a repeat of Private Eye's campaign re-cycling decades old photos of AN with his (then) amour (AN dressed in tank top/string vest iirc).
The story goes she was a little unhinged and possibly of dubious morals, but when they 'parted' she removed the crotch and armpit of all his suits using scissors. As AN was a Murdoch editor at the time he had a substantial wardrobe.
Anyhoo, fast forward to 2019 and AN is amongst the best of his breed in current political journalism, allowing 'guests' to say enough to really drop themselves in the deepest doo-doo, then withdrawing any lifeline while they flounder. Needs time to develop the trap which isn't suited to TV news soundbites, but really should be required viewing before being allowed to vote. IMHO.
The story goes she was a little unhinged and possibly of dubious morals, but when they 'parted' she removed the crotch and armpit of all his suits using scissors. As AN was a Murdoch editor at the time he had a substantial wardrobe.
Anyhoo, fast forward to 2019 and AN is amongst the best of his breed in current political journalism, allowing 'guests' to say enough to really drop themselves in the deepest doo-doo, then withdrawing any lifeline while they flounder. Needs time to develop the trap which isn't suited to TV news soundbites, but really should be required viewing before being allowed to vote. IMHO.
Fastchas said:
His interview recently with James McGrory was excellent. A Remain video showing clips of Leavers quotations but they were highly edited. In the interview he played the clips but showing more of their content and context. McGrory was turned inside out! 
It's quite old in reality but like many things in life it ages remarkably well and is my favourite Neil interview.For those who have never seen it, it really is what many refer to as 'Comedy Gold' and is a must watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff