[ad_1]
It is common for politicians to lie in interviews. This was famously expressed by Jeremy Paxman when he asked himself, “Why is this liar lying to me?” His phrase is the title of a new book by prominent former BBC producer Rob Burley. The subtitle of this book is Seeking truth in political television.
I recommend that book. It begins with an ill-fated interview with Margaret Thatcher after Nigel Lawson resigned as prime minister in 1989, and ends with Boris/Truss/Rishi, an interview with the usually admired Brian Walden.
Burley is a true believer in “long-form” interviews, which politicians now avoid. He thinks this is the best way to make the public understand what politicians are up to. he wants it back.
I like interviews like this. When I was younger, I especially enjoyed the ones directed by Robin Day in a bow tie. Challenging, but not brusque or smug. It’s humorous and almost theatrical, but it’s also safe enough to tackle serious subjects like nuclear missile systems.
After becoming a journalist, I learned about Day and fell in love with him. Like many people who “take the stage” (actors, broadcasters and politicians share a similar temperament), he was selfish, lonely and disappointed, but also touching. bottom.
Day understood that the role of interviewer was a lower role than that of an elected senior politician. He was probably more capable than most of the people he interviewed, and was undoubtedly famous, but he recognized that his responsibility was light. He was not selected by the ballot box. he didn’t make a decision. He could not answer the public.
Day was unafraid of questioning and understood his position. He was the only well-known TV journalist I knew, apart from the political editors that were part of his job, who often sat in the House bleachers just to watch. The result of the people’s choice might (to borrow his own famous phrase) be “a politician who is here today and gone tomorrow”, but he has reserved that choice.
Brian Walden, who I also knew, thought the same way. He wanted viewers to know what the interviewee thought and how she (Walden, who had kept her best relationship with Mrs Thatcher) related. He did not hesitate to challenge her, but his aim was not to defeat her, but to win her over.
In a parliamentary democracy, this approach is constitutionally correct. Not a single major political interviewer today believes this. Burley is not really aware of the problem and has not investigated its consequences.
Look at TV interviews from the point of view of a politician, especially a sitting minister who has policies and colleagues to defend. If you know before the interview begins that the interviewer doesn’t respect your position, why bother broadcasting?
The answer to the question “Why is this liar lying to me?” Included in the question itself. If the interviewer sees the victim as a “liar bastard”, what good does it do to the interviewee if he tells the truth? he has already been condemned.
If you think you’re interviewing a liar, your main objective is to “catch” him. Interviewers are scored on how well they accomplish this. Burley wrote about the night before the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral, when Beth Rigby asked Boris Johnson on the air at 10 Downing Street if it was appropriate to boopy: Rigby is in complete control. Great interview. ”
I’m not here to defend Johnson. I simply say that if the definition of a successful interview is that the prime minister is “broken” and the interviewer is “total control”, this may not be an undeniable blessing for our country. I just want to suggest
Once the euphoria of the “gotcha” moment takes hold, there’s even more demand for the same for a TV interviewer’s career. This exaggerates the journalist’s ego, lowers public understanding of politics, and causes politicians to shy away from the show.
The interviewer is based on the expectation that, in normal conversation, they should answer the questions asked. So politicians look creepy when they don’t. But why should they answer questions that are meant to trick or misrepresent them? You have the right to try to change It is not a democratic duty to give an interviewer a new scalp.
The term “media” describes the means by which audiences and subjects communicate. Interviews about gardening, the natural world, science, medicine, sports, etc. show this. Political interviews are not. they themselves are responsible. That’s why politicians avoid long interviews. They have other, less impeded ways to reach out to voters.
That is why the BBC news night lost almost all importance and programs Walden Or a long BBC interview in the days panorama It’s gone.
Burley is correct in pointing out that politicians often lie. If they do, they should not be protected. But it would be a mistake to think that we in the media are always seeking the truth.
We have our own biases, rivalries, and career paths. Sometimes I tell outrageous lies. Then we are much more likely to avoid problems than elected politicians. See how the BBC has hidden the truth of Martin Bashir’s interview with Princess Diana for a quarter of a century. If long interviews don’t exist today, it’s because television has killed what it loved.
[ad_2]
Source link
