Green Party Interview At Weekend

[SeriousSam]

I watched an interview on the BBC with the leader of the Green party at the weekend, which was rather interesting, and not just because of what she said (which I will come to later). Far more telling was the way in which the interview was conducted, i.e. the language used by the interviewer to phrase their questions. Obviously for a party whose policies are in some cases entirely at odds with those of the major parties they are going to create some “controversy”. However, when every question is raised in a manner which is almost belittling and designed to minimise any positive message that could be expressed you begin to wonder whether there was a hidden agenda. Now whether the individual in question has something against the greens or if it is part of some wider policy to undermine smaller parties which could potentially take votes away from Labour is up for debate. But irrespective of that it was one of the worst examples of bias I have seen in quite a while. In fact I was rather impressed with the way that Caroline Lucas dealt with the situation.

So if anyone else saw the interview I’d be interested to hear what you thought of it, as I may just be being hypercritical. In addition, has anyone else seen some flagrantly biased interviews on TV? Apparently there was a whitewash of an interview on the BBC with Neil Kinnock, but as I’d rather watch paint dry than listen to that clueless idiot I missed it.

Getting back to the interview itself it was nice to hear a politician categorically state that “sustainable economic growth” is totally unrealistic within a constrained resource system. However, there still seems to be a dichotomy at the heart of their politics, whereby on the one hand they accept that man has no special place in the world and yet on the other seem to believe in the sanctity of human life which elevates man above the animals. Whether it exists because of specious logic or intentionally to make their message more palatable is something of a moot point due to the fact that the chances them winning a seat is very slim. However, it does give rise to a more interesting question;

Do we actually want the truth or is ignorance actually bliss?

[Saracen]

Political interviews often take a rather antagonistic approach to political leaders (by which, I include MPs and candidates) because by challenging their views, and the assumptions they're based on, you challenge the interviewee to defend their stance.

If you ask mild questions that accommodate them, you get the political equivalent of a PR statement, and it's about as interesting as watch a cabbage grow. So, if you want them to convince people (voters) that don't (or don't yet) agree with them, you have to ask the type of questions that that person would ask, if they were there themselves.

After all, the interview is not supposed to be a platform for a political speech, it's supposed to be where they have to justify what they say, and to be able to defend it against attack.

The 'neutrality' of journalism, in that scenario, comes from switching the basis of the questions, when you're facing the other party and being equally challenging to everyone.

If you watch a good interviewer, they'll sound a bit like a policy advocate for the opposing party, whoever they interview.

For example, if an interviewee is a proponent of wind power and firmly against nuclear, you put the advantages of nuclear and get them to justify why wind is better. If the interviewee is a green sceptic and a nuclear supporter, you put the case for environmentally friendly options and you highlight the high capital costs of nuclear, and the risks, and the half-life of nuclear waste and storage problems, and of decommissioning costs.

Very rarely in politics is an issue every entirely black or white. It's nearly always a case of balancing the up and down sides. Classic example, do you use fiscal stimulus to "support" the economy. At a simplistic level, if you don't, more businesses will fail, jobs be lost and the country suffers. If you do, debt levels rise, interest payments cost more, that drains the economy, which means businesses fail and jobs are lost.

Do you tax and spend to stimulate the economy, or do you leave money in people's pockets so that they can spend it, and thereby stimulate the economy? Both ways, money goes into the economy. But, for each method, how much does, when and what effect does it have?

And so on. There's nearly always more than one way of looking at issues, and often, no way to prove whose opinion of cause and effect is right, especially over the economy. That's why Labour, Tory and LibDem are arguing over whether to cut NI or not, over how much, and when, to cut public spending, and so on.


The interviewer isn't there to serve soft balls. They're there to serve high-speed smashes and to see if the interviewee can return them .... whoever the interviewer is and whatever they believe.

[DeludedGuy]

Saracen = Nail on Head.

Interviewers are always tough on politicians, they would been seen to be biased if they weren’t.

[SeriousSam]

I don't disagree with what you say Saracen but there is a world of difference between playing devils advocate and starting from a premise of "your policies are laughable, nobody will vote for you and I'm just going to sit here and try and make you look a fool irrespective of whether what you say makes any sense".