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.