DISMAY AND UPSET FROM SW8

Je suis navré,  ou bien, consterné. I am upset and dismayed. Sentiments I am sure are shared by many people, arising from the difficulties listening to political interviews can cause. I do understand the need of journalists to push back on statements made by politicians in order for them to better state their case, or to reveal whether or not they have a case to present at all. It is certainly a style of examination we have become accustomed to and which British politicians, in any event, have come to expect and should be prepared for. 

American politicians resent such questioning as they see it as an attack on their integrity or competence and consequently accuse the interviewer of fake news and either threaten to walk away from the interview or resort to insults and attack the questioners intelligence. That is clearly stupid and displays a clear lack of intelligence and competence on their part, being unable to deal with difficult questions. 

But I digress. The reason I am dismayed is that I sometimes have the impression that journalists seek to ask questions to score some point or attempt to effectively put words into the mouth of the interviewee to show how clever they are at their job. It is a fine line between a so called investigative or aggressive cross examination, and simply trying to obtain an explanation as to why a certain policy or action is being put forward, and to give an indication as to why an opposing view is incorrect or harmful. There is a difference between asking a politician to explain why their policies are beneficial and more effective than what is being proposed by others, who may or may not be in opposition, and attempting to push for evidence of division and rancour. Questions appear at times to be put solely to irritate and disconcert the interviewee. It would seem, creating the explosive moment is more important than obtaining information. That is entertainment, not journalism. Not every interview is meant to be the Jerry Springer Show, although President Trump, treats everything like the Jerry Springer Show.

Be that as it may, I am not sure it is becoming a bit like that on the BBC. I know much is to do with time and fitting in all the items an editor wishes to cover on the particular programs scheduled time slot. A specific number of minutes per item, and things must move on, so the interruptions are sometimes necessary from the program editor’s point of view. Indeed, the producer or editor might be rushing the interviewer to get on with it and move to the next question, but it is the interruptions which are the problem and particularly the frequency and manner of the interruptions.

There is push and there is push. A great big shove is sometimes too much. I could not listen to an interview with the Prime Minister this morning because of the constant interruptions and length of the questions. I was hearing more from the journalist than the Prime Minister. Sometimes journalist forget the they are not the news. Because they talk a lot during a show, they seem to feel that have to keep talking instead of listening. Indeed, it prevents the audience from listening. I could not listen to the interview because there was too much of the journalist. I was plainly irritated, upset and dismayed,  particularly because I have respect for the journalist in question. On this occasion he lost it as far as I was concerned.. Get a grip.Nick Robinson. 

The shame of it is that the Labour Party is going through a bit of a crisis right now, and it is important to hear what the leader of the Party has to say.  I can read comment about his speech and I can agree or disagree with opinion about his speech, I don’t mind him being asked difficult questions, but I would like to hear the full answer before he’s pushed on to something else, especially when the interview is  for some 20 minutes, most of which seemed to be taken up by the interviewer rather than the interviewee. I may be wrong about that, but that its what it felt like. Hence my dismay. Indeed, the interview itself was treated like an advert, with snippets of it broadcast followed by ‘You can hear the whole of the interview at 10 past 8”. This happened several times during the program, a sort of preview of things to come. Why is that necessary? Do the producers really think it’s necessary to preview interviews to keep the listener tuned in? I don’t get it. Is the average radio 4  listener of the Today program so lacking in attention span? Are we really becoming like America? Please let it not be so, because I turned off the interview before it finished. I was not so much informed as irritated. Just too much "journalist'.