"Vicious" interviews don't get to the truth

[STIDW]

Robert Preston talking about his new programme;

I think if we want people to say what they think, we’ve got to disagree with them in a less vicious and vindictive way. There’s nothing wrong with being courteous.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/robert-peston-promises-new-itv-show-will-give-politicians-space/

There's a happy medium. "So, Minister, is there anything else you would like to tell the country" isn't great, either.

Andrew Marr took Diane Abbott apart on Sunday. Some might say he was being rude. But it was the pressurised questioning, with each question building on the previous answer and exposing the contradictions, that worked so well.

Interviewers often give the impression of being robust, tough and no nonsense when actually all they do is let the politicians off the hook. Look at Blair when he was warmongering. Time and time again the media failed to put him through rigorous questioning about the lies over WMD. I remember Paxman saying a few years ago that he'd / we'd all been hoodwinked over Iraq. Despite the screams of so many people at the time wanting to hear more the views of the real experts.

I think if the interviewer starts an interview with a list of questions designed to elicit the required response then there is very little point to the interview. Either the interviewee successfully negotiates the traps and avoids saying anything or the interviewer comes away with the preordained sound bite. Neither outcome gives me any insight into anything other than the editorial slant of the interviewer which is irrelevant unless I happen to be studying media bias.

Kay Burley seems to enjoy being viscous, and often when dealing with grieving people!

Can't imagine Andrew Marr being discourteous.

I agreed with the point Peston made in the article. When public figures actually reveal their true views, “they get this incredible bucket of s--- poured on them."
Politicians feel they have to pre-prepare everything & that it’s too dangerous to actually say what they really think. That isn't healthy, there needs to be some balance.

Kay Burley seems to enjoy being viscous

Presumably that's less of a problem if you pop her in a bain marie over boiling water?

Andrew Neil is the master of the tough but courteous interview. He flays them with his superb research.

His interviews with Natalie Bennett are hilarious.

Evan Davies is a poor substitute for Paxman and Andrew Marr constantly interrupts his interviewees.

Jon Snow is just obnoxious and rude to anyone who is not raving Left wing

Hahahaaa.....omg, I never noticed! Now I have a mental image of a viscous Kay burley, it's not pretty.

Peston vs Marr score draw so far.

Gove vs Osborne Gove every time but maybe GO suffered from Peston's killing with kindness approach - falling house prices would result from Brexit and this would be bad for first time buyers

Allegra vs Laura so far Allegra is listening rather than pushing her own analysis - much better

Screeny Mcscreenface may need time to grow into the role, but then bbc Scotland graphics had a wee minor meltdown on election night so just goes to show real people and what they think beats IT and stats every time.

Hillary Clinton is accused of being too scripted, but she's learnt the hard way to play it safe.

On the bulldog interviewer: I can't listen to Humphries any more. Turn off immediately. If the interviewer sounds like they are laying traps, that's another excellent reason to turn off.

I much prefer something like (BBC WS) HardTalk where the interviewer just goes straight to the nub of the main criticisms. Peter Allen can give a politician a very hard time while still letting the politician present their case; why should some soundbite tiny issue be what listeners want to hear journalists ask about? Or John Pienaar who implicitly intones "Well I heard you out but not sure I believe a word of it" -- also without ever being ridiculous crocodile-bite-tight about petty aspects.

I get really irritated with interviewers who ask aggressive questions and then don't give the interviewee time to answer them, and John Humphries is someone who is particularly guilty of that; also that idiot Nick Ferrari, and in his case it is compounded by the fact that he only interrupts people whose views don't coincide with his Daily Mailite prejudices. Paxman remains the master.

Paxman remains the master.

Oh yes!