I was watching Tim Russert interview Ted Kennedy on TV this morning and there were a few times when Russert let him slip away from answering his questions. For instance, Russert confronted him with some quotes from Kerry that were pretty much damning to Kennedy and Kennedy’s response was that Kerry has a much better program for the environment than Bush.
Would it have been inappropriate for Russert to say something like " So you’re choosing not to respond to my question?"
My feeling is that journalists never confront subjects on these kind of avoidances.
In an ideal world, where politicians were legally required to allow all requests by the press for interviews, a reporter should take an adversarial position constantly. The reporter is the public’s proxy, and his/her duty is to ferret out the truth.
In the real world, however, politicians aren’t required to give the press jack-shite. So reporters take a softer stance on the understanding that they will continue to have access to the politician. It’s a necessary compromise, because aggressive reporters will find themselves on the outside looking in.
I’d guess that few Americans have seen Jeremy Paxman at work. Many UK politicians simply avoid ever being interviewed by him - even though it’ll be broadcast late at night on a minority channel.
He scythes through the vagueness that emerges through most politicians lips. He makes sure he’s fully equipped with the facts. And he never forgets that he’s also a TV image, and so makes the facial gestures to match his cynical comments.
BUT…he never displays any political affiliation onscreen. He will destroy rightwing and leftwing alike.
All heil the great Jeremy Paxton! Famed in the UK for asking a government minister who refused to give a straight answer the same question not once, not twice, not five times, not even ten times, but fourteen times. People still describe it as one of the best interviews ever.
He never got an answer, but it was obvious to everyone what it was…
With the process our media interviewers use, they might as well have the person being interviewed send a tape expressing their “talking points”. It’s a sad state of affairs. They are all so afraid having their access cut off, they refuse to do their jobs.
Little do they realize that if they were to prod until they get their question answered, they would become so popular with the viewing public that the politicians would not be able to refuse them access without being scorned.
Jeremy Paxton is setting a fine example by the sounds of things (I must try to catch samples of his work) Does anyone know if he ever shows up on BBC-America?
I think Jeremy Paxman is a very good interviewer, but he overdoes the facial expressions sometimes, when his normal sceptical look is replaced something resembling open hostility and contempt!
He often presents a daily current affairs program called Newsnight on BBC2, i don’t know if you get it on BBC America, but i would doubt it, as it often deals with UK domestic issues.
You don’t want to end up never being granted interviews, though. Getting wussy answers can be more informative in the long term than getting black-balled by every politician.
But if a reporter can get more info by playing a chump, then I think that is a good thing to do. Whether they succeed is a different story…
It’s worth pointing out that even the most Paxmanical savaging will not necessarily mean much to the politician in question. Despite my being convinced at the time that Paxman had wiped out his credibility in one stroke, the Mr Howard in the above example is now leader of the Conservative Party, and looking a lot more formidable than either of the previous incumbents. Everyone’s forgotten all about whether or not he threatened to overrule anyone. Probably because the piece was shown so much in the years after it happened that everybody got fed up with it.
Also Paxman himself has admitted that he only did it quite that way because the next story had been delayed and he had to fill in time. He is usually a very tough interviewer, but that example is a bit of a caricature!
Not letting anybody dodge a question, and calling them on it when they tried was what I really liked about Bill O’Reilly when I used to watch him. Of course, over time, I got sick of his increasingly hostile attitude towards most of his guests, but still, he was about the first host I ever saw who, after asking a question, and the guest answered with a non sequitur, instead of moving on with the interview would say something like “You didn’t answer my question.”
I’ve heard that Chris Matthews is also supposed to be another interviewer who doesn’t allow anyone to dodge his questions.
In general I think that Tim Russert does a good balancing act. He is my favorite political interviewer. Open hostility serves no purpose. I am put off by aggressiveness. But assertiveness is another matter. (For example, think of how calmly the interviewers on Face the Nation put the screws to Rumsfeld last week.)
I find Russert to be assertive although I do wish for some follow up questions sometimes when they aren’t there. I think he trusts his aduience to get the drift of what the person being interviewed is actually saying or dodging. But his questions can be tough.
I am unfamiliar with Paxman, but as long as he doesn’t get too cocky or arrogant, I see no reason not to use “the broken record” technique as he did. But I can’t imagine most interviewers being able to maintain their dignity (and journalistic reputations) and do that. He’s probably interesting to watch.
Sometimes it is. I’ve seen Paxman on a docu saying that sometimes while he’s questioning a MP all that’s going through his head is Why is this bastard lying to me.
I understand a reporter has a certain incentive to gloss over some of the tougher questions, if she plans on getting interviews in the future. I’ve always hoped there would be some sort of compromise, though. I do think it’s possible, to draw some informative conclusions by what is not answered, sometimes, as often as what is. The compromise I’d be happiest with, is if the reporters would state beforehand, when given a list of questions which are not welcome, “I’m willing to avoid those questions, if you agree to allow me to inform the viewers of these questions you wish to avoid.” I’ve seen it done on occasion, but I’m talking an actual list. If a list was handed to the reporter, the reporter would be allowed to read it verbatim. Would be interesting to see if it put pressure on the person being interviewed, to ease up on his restrictions.
Being tough to the point of being mean has back-fired on reporters big time, though. Dan Rather’s 1988 interview with then Vice-president George Bush is so famous you can order videos of it:
The vast majority of people came away with the perception that Rather was a jerk and had unfairly beaten up on Bush. It helped Bush considerably in polls.
While i agree with the points that some people are making about the realpolitik involved in the whole interviewing process (i.e., if you’re too confrontational, politicians will not go on your show), i think that your post here does little more than describe a symptom of the broader problem.
If we had a more confrontational press, one that was willing to subject all politicians to searching and pugnacious questions about their actions and their policies, then people would become used to such interview styles, and interviews like the one conducted by Rather with Bush would not be seen as unfair, but as simply part of the job that the media should be doing.
In Australia, where i’m from, my favourite interviewer is a guy named Kerry O’Brien. He is not afraid to keep pummeling a politician with a question until he gets an answer, and he has, on many occasions, come straight out and said things like “I’m sorry, but that’s not what i asked. Would you answer the question?” And he does this to politicians of all stripes, from left to right.
What i also find interesting is that O’Brien works for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a public broadcaster run along the lines of the BBC. And the other pugnacious interviewer being mentioned in this thread is Paxman of the BBC. It has always been my experience in Australia and the UK that the interviewers most willing to call the politicians on their bullshit are people working for the publicly-funded channels. It’s something i reflect on whenever an American rants against public broadcasting on the grounds that it would be a lap-dog or propaganda arm of the government.
The interesting thing about countries like Australia and the UK that have good public media services is that, for the most part, even the most conservative members of those societies are strong supporters of public broadcasting. I have friends back home who vote the conservative ticket every election, but they still don’t want anyone fucking with their ABC.
