Paul Waugh carries the news that David Cameron has turned down the chance of being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman for Panorama. Gordon Brown has still to decide whether to appear. I think it's a shame Cameron won't be doing this interview. I well remember how well he came out of the interview he did with Paxman for Newsnight during the Tory leadership contest. Also, the Panorama interview is a bit of an election tradition. I used to love Robin Day's ding-dongs with Mrs T.
However, I suspect Cameron's team have decided that prepping for the TV debates must take precedence. To do the Panorama interview would have taken another half a day out of his schedule.
As I say, I'd have liked Cameron to have accepted the Panorama interview as I think that, like Nick Clegg, he'd have emerged well from it, and Brown wouldn't. But it seems now we will never know.
15 comments:
Whilst I agree with you Iain, there is the in-built cultural bias of the BBC to deal with. Paxo himself may be neutral, but his researchers, aides, gofers etc arn't and will ensure that Paxo is ""appropriately"" briefed.
Let us not forget the unforgivable behaviour of Adrian Chiles re Carole Thatcher, in divulging a conversation that went on in the Green Room, a supposedly sacrosanct area. That is representative of the BBC, its staff and its political bias.
I don't blame Brown or Cameron for refusing a Paxo interview. He's really not a serious interviewer any more - more of a fairground pugilist
Don't you mean the Paxman Newsnight interview?
If brown agrees to it now then cameron may be open to attack as a "coward" but his defence could be "i'm more interested in meeting real people rather than talking to another journo"
He's absolutely right to refuse the interview. Paxman does not have an agenda to enlighten the viewer, only to destroy the interviewee and assert his own intellectual superiority.
Nobody learns much from Paxman's interviews apart from the fact that he has his own agenda. In the next parliament, I suspect that he will find himself sidelined to greater extent while politicians will make themselves available to more even handed and moderate inteviewers. There are ideas to express - you can't expand ideas without the interest of the interviewer, which was why Walden and Day were always better than Paxman to get to the heart of an issue.
I rather think that Paxman's peak is past.
There are 3 very high profile TV debates.
I think they are better off focusing on these.
It doesn't look good, to be honest.
And this from the party leader who derided 'Bottler' Brown.
As fun as it is to watch paxo bludgeon his prey, its hardly informative.
I think the debates will change the landscape for elections.
I suspect the three debates will take up a lot of time for the party leaders and doing other interviews could risk over exposure and have a negative effect. So many TV/radio appearances also increases the risk of tripping yourself up and saying something that appears to contradict something you have said in a previous interview.
On a, slightly, related note I thought Micheal Gove came out on top in his interview with Paxman last night. He came over as frank and forthright.
Paxo should spend the 30 minutes facing a cardboard cutout of a chicken with Cameron's face .
Frit are we??? If Nick Clegg can do it, why can't Dave?
Cameron is right - but nothing to do with intellectual anything on the part of Paxo.
His 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions and constant interruptions make any serious interview impossible.
Paxo's always seems more concerned to produce drama rather than really investigate the issues.
A John Humphrys interview would have been a different matter.
I can totally understand why DC isn't doing the Paxman interview. That's old skool stuff - DC has alot of lost ground to make up.
I think the Chris Grayling screw up really damaged the Tories campaign. Many lost votes there... Also, I loved JK Rowlings piece in the Times "'I've never voted Tory before and they keep on reminding me why'...>
"Child poverty remains a shameful problem in this country, but it will never be solved by throwing millions of pounds of tax breaks at couples who have no children at all. David Cameron tells us that the Conservatives have changed, that they are no longer the “nasty party”, that he wants the UK to be “one of the most family-friendly nations in Europe”, but I, for one, am not buying it. He has repackaged a policy that made desperate lives worse when his party was last in power, and is trying to sell it as something new. I’ve never voted Tory before ... and they keep on reminding me why."
Don't be surprised to see a surprise surge in votes for the LibDems on May 6. You heard it here first.
I see JK Rowlings is still writing fiction.
Does anyone know a bbc interviewer who does not like the sound of his or her voice? Or one capable of conducting an objective and informative interview?
Comes across as cowardly. But if Brown turns it down as well then no harm done.
I actually think Paxman's interviews would be informative if politicians were more inclined to give straight answers to questions. For example, Vince Cable did well last night (though he got a pretty easy ride I think, more focus on him being the chancellor than on his party's policies)
Post a Comment