Is a lecture by Bill Gates (or anyone else) good television?


I don't often repeat blogs verbatim, but watching Bill Gates giving this year's Richard Dimbleby Lecture (HERE) reminded me of a question I asked two years ago that still baffles me and is still awaiting an answer, namely: 

Why does the BBC commemorate Richard Dimbleby with a televised lecture?

My thoughts from two years ago remain pretty much unchanged:

'Last night's Richard Dimbleby Lecture on BBC 1 was delivered by Michael Morpurgo, the latest in a long and distinguished line of famous people to have done so every year (except four) since 1972 (full list HERE).

'But what baffles me about this annual event is how and why the BBC ever decided that the most suitable memorial to a celebrated broadcaster would be something as ill-suited to television as a lecture.

'Wouldn't an annual Dimbleby Documentary, Dimbleby Debate or Dimbleby Interview have been a more fitting way to remember a current affairs journalist? After all, these were not only the kinds of things he was best known for, but would have come across better on television than celebrities, many of whom have little or no experience of lecturing, standing behind a lectern and talking for rather a long time.

'Given the BBC's increasing reluctance to show even very short extracts from political speeches in their news programmes (on which there's more discussion and links HERE and HERE), it strikes me as rather odd that the Dimbleby lecture has been allowed to carry on in its original format.

'So far, I've been unable to find out anything about why the BBC (or who) decided in the first place that a lecture would be the best way to commemorate his life - and would be interested to hear from anyone who knows something about its history.'

Cameron on Europe: a press release thinly disguised as a speech

Get Adobe Flash player

Finding out when and where David Cameron's much-trailed speech on Europe was taking place today posed at least as much of a challenge as working out what the point of it all was.

What I eventually discovered was that that both the when and the where of the speech were quite unusual - unless it's suddenly become fashionable for our politicians to deliver major speeches at 8.00 a.m. in the morning on the off chance that the American news agency in central London (where the speech was being given) would be able to drum up an audience at a moment's notice to listen to it - or, to be more precise, to prepare reports on what he said for the rest of the day's news programmes.

Who was there?
From the above, there's very little evidence that anyone was there at all: no coughing or sneezing and not so much as a hint of applause at the end of the speech.

Yet there were, of course plenty of people there, not supporters who might have cheered or clapped, but representatives of the media busily writing notes on what he was saying - while he was saying it (which keen 'listeners' could follow live, as the words came out of his mouth, on the BBC website HERE).

Speech or press release?
So does this really count as a political 'speech' delivered by a leading politician, or was it merely a case of a leading politician taking the trouble to read out a press release - on the grounds that no one would  take any notice of it unless it were disguised, however thinly, as 'a speech'?

And are we going to have to put up with more and more such non-speeches as the stock-in-trade of contemporary political communication?


Should we have the right to bear arms during a speech?


Yesterday's news that someone had interrupted a Bulgarian politician's speech by mounting the stage and pointing a gun at him made me realise how little I know about Bulgarian politics - as well as how unusual (thankfully) it is for audiences to respond to speeches in this particular way.

I also realised that I have no idea as to whether or not the Bulgarian constitution enshrines the right of its citizens "to bear arms", or indeed to beat up anyone whose gun fails to go off at point blank range.

Needless to say, I hope that neither of these rights is enjoyed by Bulgarians, and, more importantly, that such trends do not catch on in the USA...

Lance Armstrong's 'straight' answers to Oprah's Yes/No questions



Having never previously seen any Oprah Winfrey interviews, I've no idea whether her interviewees have to agree beforehand to answer any "Yes/No" questions she might ask with a straight "Yes" or "No".

But that's what disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong did in this sequence from his interview with her.

Whether or not it was not the way she had expected him to confess, as she'd said in her trailers for the show, I do not know. I do know, however, that to my English ears, such apparently straight answers to a series of "Yes/No" questions definitely qualifies it for a place my collection of unusual TV interviews.

Examples of Other Unusual Interviews

  • Politician answers a question: an exception that proves the rule
  • A Labour leader with no interest in spin!
  • A Tory leader's three evasive answers to the same question
  • The day Mrs Thatcher apologised (twice) for what she'd said in an interview
  • A prime minister who openly refused to answer Robin Day's questions
  • 'Here today, gone tomorrow' politician walks out of interview with Robin Day
  • The day Mandelson walked out of an interview rather than answer a question about Gordon Brown
  • Mandelson gives two straight answers to two of Paxman's questions
  • Two more straight answers from Mandelson - about failed coups and the PM's rages
  • Rare video clip of a politician giving 5 straight answers to 5 consecutive questions
  • One = Three religious questions in Obama's Connecticut speech

    For students of rhetoric and oratory, there's always a silver lining to the horrific mass shootings that have become such a regular feature of American life - because one thing that's certain is that we'll get to hear yet another example of President Obama making a masterful speech that catches the mood of the nation.

    The  full video and transcript of what he said at the interfaith Prayer Vigil in Newtown, Connecticuton on Sunday can be seen below. But one line that particularly intrigued me was this one, in which he set up  "a simple question" that turned out to be three questions:

    "All the world's religions — so many of them represented here today — start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? "

    Nor has the fact that no one seems to have noticed or raised any queries about this apparent inconsistency surprised me. As I noted four years ago, his speech in Chicago on winning the presidency for the first time contained 29 three-part lists in just over ten minutes. Nobody noticed that either, nor did it stop people from being impressed by the 'quality' of the speech.

    Much the same, it seems, applies to this speech, even to the extent that some commentators have been hailing it as his 'Gettysburg Address'.

    The full transcript of President Obama's speech at the Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 16, 2012:

    Thank you. Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests — Scripture tells us: "…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."

    Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you're not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we've pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown — you are not alone.

    As these difficult days have unfolded, you've also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school's staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy — they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances — with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.

    We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms, and kept steady through it all, and reassured their students by saying "wait for the good guys, they're coming"; "show me your smile."
    And we know that good guys came. The first responders who raced to the scene, helping to guide those in harm's way to safety, and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and trauma because they had a job to do, and others needed them more. 

    And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, "I know karate. So it's okay. I'll lead the way out." (Laughter.)

    As a community, you've inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you've looked out for each other, and you've cared for one another, and you've loved one another. This is how Newtown will be remembered. And with time, and God's grace, that love will see you through.

    But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. Someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around. With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves — our child — is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice. And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child's very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won't — that we can't always be there for them. They'll suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments. And we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear.


    And we know we can't do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can't do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we're counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we're all parents; that they're all our children.

    This is our first task — caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how, as a society, we will be judged.

    And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we're all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

    I've been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We're not doing enough. And we will have to change.
    Since I've been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we've hugged survivors. The fourth time we've consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America — victims whose — much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

    But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.
    In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

    All the world's religions — so many of them represented here today — start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain; that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it's wealth or power or fame, or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that no matter how good our intentions, we will all stumble sometimes, in some way. We will make mistakes, we will experience hardships. And even when we're trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God's heavenly plans.

    There's only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have — for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child's embrace — that is true. The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves, and binds us to something larger — we know that's what matters. We know we're always doing right when we're taking care of them, when we're teaching them well, when we're showing acts of kindness. We don't go wrong when we do that.
    That's what we can be sure of. And that's what you, the people of Newtown, have reminded us. That's how you've inspired us. You remind us what matters. And that's what should drive us forward in everything we do, for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.

    "Let the little children come to me," Jesus said, "and do not hinder them — for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
    Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

    God has called them all home. For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on, and make our country worthy of their memory.

    May God bless and keep those we've lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort. And may He bless and watch over this community, and the United States of America.