Have Paxman, Humphrys et al. gone too far with the attack-dog mode of political interviewing?
The answer is "sort of". I love watching Paxman, and listening to Humphrys - politics is best when it's least staged, most direct, and when politicians are treated with suspicion. However the inevitable result of such political interviewing is the atrocious mess of last weeks Question Time. Steve and I have participated in the show before, and it was a rare treat to witness democracy in action, and all that is good about British politics.
However, the questioning of Kennedy, Howard and Blair was excruciating, and irrelevent. They each appeared to cheers and jeers creating a pantomime atmosphere that the standard of question failed to remedy. Although the revelation to Blair about 48 hour appointments was a joy to behold, the audiences insistent rudeness and heckling was pathetic.
I actually felt affection for Blair, as he confronted the critics to point out the ridiculousness of beating the Iraq dead horse. We know the issue. Those of us critical of his handling of the war do not need to hear him defend himself. As Blair rightly said, that is one aspect amongst a myriad of others which we need to weight, and vote against. There is absolutely no point in wasting your 5 minutes of fame by making cheap jibes at political leaders.
Watching the audience of Question Time makes me think that the three on stage aren't so bad after all.
Recent Comments