Paxman v Howard

This is a quite difficult piece to look at with total objectivity. We have two very able exponents of the debating genre close to the top of their game.

Bias

The platform for this confrontation was set in the preceding interview with Ann Widdicombe, and straight away Paxman set out his stall very clearly. Did Howard suspend Lewis, threaten to suspend him and/or bully him or anyone else in connection with the dismissal of the prison governor. In the initial Q&A interlude both men seemed happy with the format. There was no evidence of bias on either side.

Answering style

For the first four or five questions Howard’s answering style was straightforward and open, putting his side of the discussion with forceful candor and lucidity. It wasn’t until the “balling off” question was put to him that he audibly bristled. From then on the styles on both sides became more confrontational; swords were now drawn.

Specifics

There is one specific question, as to the wording of the dismissal of Derek Lewis from his position as head of the prison service, which has the most significance, the sort of loaded question where a simple yes/no answer would have sufficed; and very likely closed out that aspect of the interview, but it was not to be.

Avoidance

Howard refused to give Paxman his desired answer but instead went on to display a deft and elegant touch in the art of obfuscation. Here was a man who could give Gen. Jackson a master class in stonewalling.

Violation

The interviewee here was a professional lawyer in a previous incarnation and at the time of the interview was an MP and running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, that would suggest a man with questionable integrity on at least two counts; its difficult to imagine how he could be violated, or even what would constitute violation in such a case. In any event Paxman put his questions with his usual incisive vigor and Howard answered as a politician rather than a lawyer, all perfectly acceptable. In that arena and on that occasion any attempt at violation would have been foolhardy in the extreme. On the day honors even I’d say.

Use of language

The interview was conducted with the highest standards of both content and delivery adhered to, neither condescending nor mawkish. While both sides defended their individual positions with zeal, the language was measured and controlled. A mini verbal slugfest that left the viewer feeling something of a voyeur, peeking into the inner workings of two very athletic minds.

Burley v O’Brien

(1) Bias

Yes there was bias a plenty, on the part of the interviewer. Although in stared out as a straightforward hatchet job on the interviewee because they took exception to his treatment of Frank Lampard on his radio show, not directly, but in response to a question put to him on his phone in program by a listener. Burley very much adapted the aura of the mighty TV hit man sent to savage the, oh so passé, Radio linkman. From the start she was traveling with undeclared baggage

(2) Answering style

Mostly the answers were delivered in a normal easy conversational style but when the ground rules were changed the subject rose to the occasion admirably and defended his position with gusto and elegance.

(3) Specifics

Specific questions were answered specifically; only when the barely submerged agenda began to surface did the subject’s style get tougher and he continually had to bring the interviewer back to her original question within the bounds of the original remit, presumably agreed in advance.

(4) Avoidance

At no time did he try to avoid the questions, on the contrary he had to work hard to keep the interviewer to her stated agenda. She tried hard to inject a sexist aspect into the interview but O’Brien was wily enough to avoid the trap. Her aggressive and devious approach is such that it’s more likely to give male sexism a good name than serve in establishing whatever point intended.

(5) Violation

In general there was no effort needed to counter violation by the interviewee, there wasn’t any. There was though a number of times he was not prepared to answer questions that were straying outside the agenda’s remit, questions he deemed off-side were steered back on side. This was one “lady” who did not understand the offside rule.

(6) Use of language

There was no noticeable departure from the normal London-centric broadcaster language in general use south of the Wash, i.e. RP/Estuary English.

Violence in Cairo

Violence in Cairo

The object of this piece of video reportage is simply to covey a sense of mayhem on the streets of Cairo. Since we know that the protests have been ongoing for over a week now with it’s primary purpose, the removal of Mubarak, this report does little to enlighten or inform. It just tells us that life on the streets of Cairo is tough and getting tougher. This is the Sky News message. That violence broke out between two opposing factions was suggested to us but without any way of distinguishing one side from the other the exercise was pointless. What we saw was a large bunch of human kind in something like a free for all. A street party gone wrong, the reporter too left much to be desired. As an exercise in “news gathering” it was pretty low grade. The technique (singular) used had camera and reporter darting hither an yon resulting in distorted footage with poor lineage and the reporter’s tiresome habit of looking where the camera was pointing and not talking to it, and to us, was carless. Horses crashed to the ground, riders kicked and beaten, we were told? While the plural was used the camera showed us just a single horse standing rider-less and a man on the ground, presumably the rider, been dealt with rather severely. The Arab world may be able to distinguish between the pro/against Mubarak factions but for the Western viewers of Sky News all Arabs look alike. Sky was unable to show us their respective and differing thought processes, just one amorphous mass of milling mayhem.

There was little by way of insight into the values or life styles of the Egyptian people save for a brief shot of one poor chap, on his knees and facing Mecca and probably hurriedly making the Muslim version of what we know as “an act of contrition” a wise move in the circumstances: no better place for an each way bet.

The reason for sending this uncut and unenlightening footage had nothing new to tell us other than to let us know that Sky News was right they’re where it’s at. Better to have waited half an hour, do a bit of serious editing. A general tidying up of the whole piece would not have gone amiss.

The CNN clip I posted on Monday was just one of many I looked at that day regarding the breaking news on the Egyptian scene. Like the rest of them it was simply giving a description of what the camera was looking at but without any comment as to what the root cause might possible be. Even the British broadsheets don’t seem willing to do other than suggest that perhaps its time for Mubarak to move on and make way for a more democratic system. So soon after the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and with rising unrest in Jordan and Syria I would like to see the media taking a much closer look behind the scenes at all the Middle East (Arab) states and do some finger pointing.

There is a recognizable root cause that cannot be dealt with unless and until it is outed. We will be waiting patiently and observing closely, one day the bullet will have to be grasped.