I watch Eamonn Holmes every morning from 6am, and when he interviews anyone, especially politicians, his style is always both respectful and ‘probing’.
So while the professional Holmes was trying to be respectful, almost ‘shooting the breeze’ - part of Holmes dilemma with Corbyn was HOW do you ask probing questions to a Labour leader who boasts “Straight Talking, Honest Politics” – when many of his policy views had appeared to change within a week of his election, but still subject to official policy agreement with his own Shadow Cabinet, after their conference.
Corbyn therefore wants to entirely talk in mantras, rather like a Moonie, thinking that he has an option as a political leader to spread the political love with 'adult, civilised, respectful' conversation – right before he launches his vicious attacks on Conservatives seemingly in denial of his own party’s record, the enormity of the problems they left, and what has been achieved since.
I would suggest that may, repeat may, be why Holmes come across as condescending.
As if anyone has ever seen Peter Sellers in a film called ‘Being There’, how can you get an informative interview for the viewers (which was kinda the point of any interview), when you have a character on the other end of the line with the demeanour of the Sellers character ‘Chauncey Gardiner’.
Clearly Labour activists would rather everyone sits back in awe of this new political coming, waiting for Corbyn to ‘waft’ a Confucius style ‘pearl’ in our direction.
But others will just see Chauncey Corbyn as a cross between the failed policies of the 1970’s and 6th Form political theory – until he ‘shows us the money’.