Two very unusual things happen in these two clips from last night's Question Time on BBC1.
The first is that that David Dimbleby feels liberated enough to phrase his questions in a way that might, in a one-to-one interview with no audience, come across as excessively cheeky and perhaps even biased against Labour (Margaret Becket) and the Liberal Democrats (Ming Campbell).
The second is that the audience comes in and applauds what Dimbleby says before the politicians have had time to start their answers - and are therefore under much more pressure than they would have been if they were being interviewed in a studio with no audience there showing how much they approve of the interviewer's question.
Showing posts with label Dimbleby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dimbleby. Show all posts
The liveliest Question Time ever?
Not long after yesterday's post suggesting that interviews with politicians would be much livelier if they were conducted in front of an audience and that audience reactions can liberate interviewers from being constrained by their professional obligation to be neutral, on came a stunningly lively edition of BBC's Question Time that rather proves the point.
All the questions were about MPs' expenses, and there were moments when David Dimbleby positively buzzed as he used audience interventions to press some of the panel harder than he would have been able to do had there been no audience.
I'm planning to post some edited highlights later today, so watch this space.
All the questions were about MPs' expenses, and there were moments when David Dimbleby positively buzzed as he used audience interventions to press some of the panel harder than he would have been able to do had there been no audience.
I'm planning to post some edited highlights later today, so watch this space.
Why it's so easy for politicians not to answer interviewers' questions - and what should be done about it
I mentioned in an earlier post that I’d once heard the late Robin Day complaining that the news interview had been ‘hijacked’ by politicians who had discovered that they could get away with ignoring questions and talk about whatever they felt like.
In the clip below, you can hear David Dimbleby making much the same point:
If interviewers as experienced as Day and Dimbleby can be so easily thwarted, there must be some quite deep-seated reason why it’s so easy for politicians to get away with it. And I think Dibmleby is on to it when he says that he doesn’t have a gun to point at them if they don’t answer a question.
The thing about pointing a gun at someone is that it is about as hostile and aggressive an action as you can think of. And the trouble is that the only conversational techniques available to us for trying to get someone to answer questions also come across as hostile and agressive.
In the clip below, you can hear David Dimbleby making much the same point:
If interviewers as experienced as Day and Dimbleby can be so easily thwarted, there must be some quite deep-seated reason why it’s so easy for politicians to get away with it. And I think Dibmleby is on to it when he says that he doesn’t have a gun to point at them if they don’t answer a question.
The thing about pointing a gun at someone is that it is about as hostile and aggressive an action as you can think of. And the trouble is that the only conversational techniques available to us for trying to get someone to answer questions also come across as hostile and agressive.
HOSTILITY & NEUTRALITY
Consider, for example, the kind of thing that happens when a witness in court fails to answer a question during cross-examination.
Barristers can ruthlessly intervene and demand an answer:
Counsel: “Did you make any attempt to persuade the crowd to go back before you baton-charged them?”
Witness: “I don’t see how you could persuade them to go back.”
Counsel: “Never mind that – just answer the question first and then give your reason. Did you make any effort to persuade the crowd to go back before you baton-charged them?”
Witness: “No.”
Or they may refer the matter to the judge for a ruling, as in this sequence where the alleged victim in an American rape trial is being cross-examined:
Counsel: “Didn’t you tell the police that the defendant had been drinking?”
Witness: “I told them there was a cooler in the car and I never opened it.”
Counsel: “May the balance of the answer be stricken, your honour, and the answer is ‘no’”
Judge: “Yes - the answer is ‘No’.”
If the lawyers sound hostile or aggressive towards the witnesses, this is of course perfectly acceptable in an adversarial legal system in which barristers are paid to take sides.
But the insurmountable obstacle that our news interviewers are up against is that they are paid to be neutral, which means that appearing to take sides can get them into serious trouble - so that they are, in effect, barred from using the kinds of hostile conversational techniques used in other settings to force people to answer a question without also coming across as aggressive and, by implication, politically biased (unless, of course, they’re willing to court controversy and take the risk of losing their job).
A SOLUTION?
So here’s my formula for sparing us from having to watch the repetitive evasiveness of politicians in interviews: they would be conducted in front of an audience equipped with handsets that would enable them to press a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button, according to whether or not they felt a question had been adequately answered. These would be instantly added up and displayed on a scoreboard behind the interviewer and interviewee.
Whenever more than 50% of the audience felt that the politician had not answered the question, the interviewer would have the right and duty to press further on the same question – and to continue doing so until more than half the audience had rated the answer as adequate.
Such an approach would have three advantages over the present situation:
1. It would liberate interviewers from the risk of being accused of hostility or political bias, because they would merely be acting as representatives on behalf of a dissatisfied audience.
2. By making it more difficult for politicians to be so evasive, it would give viewers and listeners a clearer idea about where the interviewees really stand on a particular issue.
3. It would be much more entertaining television than the tedium currently inflicted on us (and might even have the added bonus of getting people more interested in politics than they are at present).
Consider, for example, the kind of thing that happens when a witness in court fails to answer a question during cross-examination.
Barristers can ruthlessly intervene and demand an answer:
Counsel: “Did you make any attempt to persuade the crowd to go back before you baton-charged them?”
Witness: “I don’t see how you could persuade them to go back.”
Counsel: “Never mind that – just answer the question first and then give your reason. Did you make any effort to persuade the crowd to go back before you baton-charged them?”
Witness: “No.”
Or they may refer the matter to the judge for a ruling, as in this sequence where the alleged victim in an American rape trial is being cross-examined:
Counsel: “Didn’t you tell the police that the defendant had been drinking?”
Witness: “I told them there was a cooler in the car and I never opened it.”
Counsel: “May the balance of the answer be stricken, your honour, and the answer is ‘no’”
Judge: “Yes - the answer is ‘No’.”
If the lawyers sound hostile or aggressive towards the witnesses, this is of course perfectly acceptable in an adversarial legal system in which barristers are paid to take sides.
But the insurmountable obstacle that our news interviewers are up against is that they are paid to be neutral, which means that appearing to take sides can get them into serious trouble - so that they are, in effect, barred from using the kinds of hostile conversational techniques used in other settings to force people to answer a question without also coming across as aggressive and, by implication, politically biased (unless, of course, they’re willing to court controversy and take the risk of losing their job).
A SOLUTION?
So here’s my formula for sparing us from having to watch the repetitive evasiveness of politicians in interviews: they would be conducted in front of an audience equipped with handsets that would enable them to press a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button, according to whether or not they felt a question had been adequately answered. These would be instantly added up and displayed on a scoreboard behind the interviewer and interviewee.
Whenever more than 50% of the audience felt that the politician had not answered the question, the interviewer would have the right and duty to press further on the same question – and to continue doing so until more than half the audience had rated the answer as adequate.
Such an approach would have three advantages over the present situation:
1. It would liberate interviewers from the risk of being accused of hostility or political bias, because they would merely be acting as representatives on behalf of a dissatisfied audience.
2. By making it more difficult for politicians to be so evasive, it would give viewers and listeners a clearer idea about where the interviewees really stand on a particular issue.
3. It would be much more entertaining television than the tedium currently inflicted on us (and might even have the added bonus of getting people more interested in politics than they are at present).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)