Anger control
There is a risk, is there not, that the "anger" issue - I see the New York Times today - slightly masks the more important question of what a legitimate question is, and whether presidential candidates (and presidents) are ludicrously over-protected from the perfectly reasonable cut and thrust of debate, and ludicrously over-react when someone presses them.
of and the man from AP has been widely circulated, although on this occasion the candidate keeps his cool, it seems to me. The interesting bit comes at the very end, when the press officer attacks the reporter for "arguing".
He should go to Britain, where "arguing" is exactly what interviewers are meant to do, at least that has been the fashion of recent years. Americans looking for real political cut and thrust should take their cue from of the 麻豆官网首页入口's best known interviewer and (until recently) its best known politician...
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
The problem you don't raise here is what is and is not an acceptable form of 'arguing' or emotion:
Bill Clinton didn't 'lose' his temper, in the sense that his points were articulately made towards the interviewer, and he got his point across well. In fact, he still has a slight smile across his face as he's answering the interviewers question at the end.
Neither did Hilary become an emotional wreck in New Hampshire as some US television networks were implying.
In order to get a story, the media seems to exaggerate candidates' emotional states, and in doing so also undermine the question that was asked.
As for the point about what a 'legitimate' question is: anything. I think candidates should be held accountable like Romney was to the interviewer from the AP. The candidates have a responsibility to answer such questions. However, the media has a responsibility to report on their actual answers, rather than letting their anger become the story.
I completely agree with you. We Americans baby our politicians. They are only asked the polite questions, not the ones that really matter. It makes it difficult to determine who would really be the best president when everything they say is scripted "within an inch of their lives" as my mother says.
To Mr. Webb
Try spending more time with (and reporting) facts rather than looking for ways to take another stab at defaming candidates who don't support your obviously liberal personal views. Often you're petty and your points baseless.
As an American, I've read 麻豆官网首页入口 for years, mainly because they take a pretty balanced view on most things.
You Don't fit in there Buck-o.
It's obvious you hate Romney (admit it) and it would rub you real bad to be forced to give him a fair review.
(This goes for a number of other candidates as well, but Romney is the one where I see your lack of professionalism most pronounced.) This alone makes me more willing to vote for the guy, or at least find out what he's really about.
Grow up, use facts, report news.
Good old Paxo - you just have to love him - or hate him.
Its just a pity that he didn't get the job of interviewing the PM for "The Blair Years" on 麻豆官网首页入口 television.
Instead we had the NuLab supporter and "friend" of Tony, David Aaronovitch.
What a cosy little whitewash that was.
Journalists have a responsibly to hold politicians to account. I think the "feral beasts" of Britain's media do the country a favour: they keep the politicians on their toes. If you read Alastair Campbell's diaries, it's clear Blair was constantly worried about what the media might say about him.
I do think the media can be too savage though: Neil Kinnock was very angry when The Sun put his head in a light bulb with the headline "If Neil Kinnock wins the elction today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
On the other hand, I think the American media is far too bias in it's television reporting. The way Hillary Clinton has been berated (often with arguments that have no basis) has even been picked up by Bill O'Reilly who described it as "shocking".
One thing is certain: A good, strong media makes for a good, strong country. Freedom of the press is essential to prevent corruption in politics. And it does work. Tony Blair is right when he says that Britain may have some problems in politics but we probably suffer the least political corruption of any country in the world. It's true.
Yes, journalists should ask questions, but when they get an answer they don't like, should they then imply that the politician is lying? My impression of Johnson was that he behaved as a petulant child.
Johnson's insistence that Romney's campaign was being run by a lobbyist was more an accusation than a "question". And it seemed personal for Johnson when he didn't get the response he wanted.
All Johnson had to do was clarify the lobbyist's role. His job was not to make an accusation and then press his position.
America needs so much more of this.
Sorry Justin but I don't think 'Britain' (a redundant political entity) can hold its head very high.
I have listened to the so-called aggressive John Humphreys being effortlessly handled by some obscure Congressman from the mid-West, when our 'fearless' Tony Blair did all could to avoid coming on the Toady radio programme (ruined by the Gilligan affair).
Also, when Paxman finally got to interview Blair, we the hapless English viewers, had and still have, absolutely no idea of the context of the interview.
For example, we did'nt know the parameters of the interview, what questions are 'off limits', what questions were pre-supplied and so on.
After that particular interview, I found out later that out of camera shot and directly facing Paxman were a scowling Alastair Crowley, the most evil man in England and Tony Blairs son.
Hardly conducive to an impartial interview eh?
In my opinion, although the Presidental process is a bit odd, in general, the USA's democratic processes are still a few hundreds years ahead of us in the accursed Blighty.
After all, that is precisely why the Americans left us in the first place.
I have recently moved to the US from the UK and when I watch televised interviews and press conferences with politicians I get very frustrated because the obvious questions are not being asked. My American friends tell me that if a journalist asks a difficult and unfriendly question they are unlikely to be given another interview or invitation to a press conference. My friends are pretty cynical about both American politicians and the media. Is there any justification to this cynicism?
Justin, you seem to be in a good position to enlighten us about this. You describe the US as "the world's most fascinating, open and complex place". But in many ways it seems to be less open that Britain. Why US journalist are so gutless compared to British journalists?
Sorry, but that clip of the Paxman/Blair interview made little sense to me. I guess it proved that Blair wasn't prepared for a spur of the moment, rapid fire intelligence test. But who is? And who cares? Doesn't running a gov't generally entail looking at the overall picture and hopefully making decisions that are best suited for the country and its people long term? So why not ask questions that test his judgement? Anyway, I guess it was Paxman's intent to find a means of humiliating Blair so wow, he succeeded.
Spot on Justin
A reporter/interviewer is ostensibly an observer asking questions. The questioner doesn鈥檛 or shouldn鈥檛 have an agenda just simply following a series of questions based upon observed events, to explain what, where and why. The answer is the 鈥渟tory鈥 not the question.
One of the best Paxman鈥檚 has been the interview with Tory MP M.Howard when Paxman had to ask the same question 11 times, and did not get a reply, ..priceless. That could never happen in US, he would be argue-ist!
As for aggressive Humphreys鈥, if the Congressman from middle of nowhere was able to answer the questions, perfect, as that is the point. The implication that Humphreys鈥 is being aggressive because he鈥 wants answers wants then now and has an axe to grind. Humphreys鈥, like all reporters, is just asking questions for a 鈥榩erson鈥 to justify their actions. If he answered them as #8 suggests, then Humphreys鈥 has done his job. Just because the interviewer didn鈥檛 鈥榗orner him鈥 doesn鈥檛 mean the interview is not a success. One should not assume the questioner has an agenda to say 鈥済ottcha鈥. If this emerges, by some revelation, then of course that鈥檚 a scoop!
The British left and landed in a new land and formed America. They were not American when they left the British Isles.
Here in Japan it is just as bad. Since to ask probing questions is considered rude, as it is culturally unacceptable to ask direct questions, so any probing is very weak; it also makes the debate ineffectual, as accountability is the same as direct speech. The language is even structured around such, hence it is all grey and no black and white.
I also don鈥檛 see too many countries having 鈥淨uestion Time鈥, where MPs are quizzed by the general public in a TV debate, on topical issues. Nor do I see too many Leaders, Prime Minister in the case of the UK, being questioned by the opposition, having to explain his actions and make convincing arguments to carry policy, and later from the press too.
As #5 said, 鈥溾ony Blair is right when he says that Britain may have some problems in politics but we probably suffer the least political corruption of any country in the world鈥︹, the reason being as #5 noted, rightly or wrongly. The press may be slightly corrupt and narcissistic themselves, but at least the make those in power, answer questions.
Dear Sir,
This is a shift in all news media to 'info-tainment' driven strictly by ratings.
First FOX, then CNN (Lou Dobbs) and now MSNBC (Mathews) have all turned to centering their programming around news personalties - the more outraguous the better - rather than seeking hard facts and presenting them in an unbiased format.
That Mathews actually interupted Howard Fineman (a legitimate journalist) to watch a clip of himself badgering a candidate - he actually said "look at me - I love myself".
The most dramatic story lines are hyped at the expense of a clear,calm analysis of positions/facts.
I agree that journalists need to ask hard questions - but more and more it is all about the journalist - I don't care about them. I expect my media to be professional and rise above the emotion of the moment. I have tuned in to the PBS stations and they seem to be doing a decent job.
Thank you for your time.
Patrick,
Philadelphia USA
This reminds me of that silly business the president instituted where everyone is supposed to stand when he enters the room, as if it were royalty. The critical point is that it was not always that way. America has had a strong media in the past, and there is reason to believe it will so again in the future.
I wonder what happened to the career of the Boston TV reporter who did the interview with Bush in 1999 where he asked him to name various world leaders.
Um,Mr Constable...Aleister Crowley (note spelling) was a Satanist and hedonist who lived in the latter part of the nineteenth to the mid-to-late 20th century, and once described himself as 'the wickedest man in the world'.
For all his many faults, I don't quite equate Alastair Campbell with him. Was it a Freudian slip on your part, or are you seeing monsters?
Re this debate, D's comments betray his political immaturity; I think he's the type of guy who votes for 'the guy who says the nicest things'. Mind you, while I prefer our media to that of the US, having lived in both countries, I've never seen or heard a UK interviewer who can match Charlie Rose. I'm all for rigorous questioning, but Messrs Paxman and Humphrys' styles often are in danger of overshadowing the actual topic of the interview itself. And journalists are only mailmen, bringing us a story (just as President and PMs are mailmen delivering our mandate and sending us policies).
I completely agree. And it's not just British journalists who are much tougher with politicians. British politicians also face much tougher questioning and criticism from their contemporaries. Take the weekly Questions to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I would love to see a US President having to face such direct questioning.
For readers information, I believe that the clip shown above is a spoof, although I must admit that I thought that most folk would realise that it was not a serious commentary.
In an earlier post, I did not intend to write Aleister Crowley instead of Alastair Campbell and tried to correct it but the wrong post got through the system.
Anyway, Campbell surely is not that bad, just slightly demonic in the way that ex-alcoholics often are.
Although Campbell must realise and live with the fact that he deliberately set in motion a sequence of events that unfortunately lead directly to the untimely death of Government Scientist Dr. David Kelly.
Anyway, I would contend that the Americans have a democracy that works far, far better than that in England, mainly because it is a 'bottom-up' democracy not a 'top-down' system that we English still labour under centuries after the Americans said goodbye.
Yes, I completely agree!! Our journalists do need to be far tougher with our president/presidencial hopefuls when interviewing them! I think part of the reason why they are not is perhaps because of the fear that Bush has instilled in a lot of our journilists of being labeled as "soft on terror or unpatriotic", and the ostrisation which will beset them if they are, in fact, deamed as such. I very much envy and admire the British journalists/reporters's zeal and unwillingness to allow themselves to be sucked into the fear/ostrisation that, I believe, that Bush/Blair-and I think Bush has succeeded very gloriously at this-have tryed to instill in their citizens.
I do, however, think that although journalists in the UK are very good (on the whole), and do a very good job of keeping their prime minister's feet to the fire, some of them-such as the one displayed in this vidio- do go too far as to be mean and rude and, I think make the person whom they are questioning want to tune them out rather than listen to them. There is a fine line between questioning someone harshly and being rude and some of them have crossed or are flerting with it. The vidio was hillarious in my opinion! He didn't at some points even give Blair a chance to form a responce-I sware he reminded me of my high school bully!!
A journilist's job is to keep their government honest, fair, and free through (constructive) criticism-not to put it and its leaders down. Just as government's heads's jobs are to lead-but listen to opposing views and know that it is all spoken with the best interests of the nation at heart. The difficulty in that is finding a happy balance.
Could the problem of gutless journalists be traced to "..he who pays the piper chooses the tune..."
In Canada we have also noticed a decline in the quality of investigative journalism which seems to be proportional to media concentration and the related paranoia of offending advertisers and those troublesome special interest groups.