What is the point of Jeremy Paxman?

That's the question asked by Peter Barron, Newsnight Editor, in his latest column.  Mr Barron reflects on the recent Tory leadership interviews and (in addition to an 'aren't-we-so-very-important' side-swipe at corporate lawyers) his column betrays some annoyance at the way Jeremy Paxman's sneering interviewing style has been covered.   

He talks about a "pre-match psychological skirmish of which Jose Mourinho would have been proud".  In his mind is Michael Gove's brilliant spoof of a Jeremy Paxman interview of Jesus Christ.  Mr Gove, a regular on Friday's Newsnight Review, appears to have got under Newsnight's skin.  "The point Michael Gove misses," writes Barron, "is that, despite their undoubted charms, neither Mr Davis nor Mr Cameron has descended from heaven to become leader of the Conservative Party.  They are standing for high public office and it's right that they should be subjected to detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies." 

But does Jeremy Paxman really subject politicians to "detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies"?  Take last night's DC versus JP encounter.  Was JP really interested in finding out what DC believed or was he interested in catching him out on some barely relevant detail?  He was very interested in talking about whether or not DC has used Class A drugs in the past but failed to subject him to any detailed questioning on his policy views on cannabis or ecstasy.  This interest in personality over policy is a problem throughout the media.  JP wanted to shout about inconsistencies in David Cameron's position but he didn't want to find out why he might have changed his mind.  Constant interruptions barely allowed David Davis to deliver any kind of message last week.   Mr Cameron handled Mr Paxman's interventions very well but he was still subjected to a bombardment of tangential questions.

Part of Mr Barron's justification for Jeremy Paxman's style is that "he'll face withering exchanges at the dispatch box".  But that, too, is part of the problem of the British system.  Tony Blair rarely puts a foot wrong at PMQs.  He is a good interviewee.  But he's a lousy Prime Minister - all big ideas and clever spinning, but no delivery.  Many politicians "perform" well at PMQs and in Paxman interviews but we need to find much better ways of really testing their abilities to govern.

American voters prefer Governors over Senators when it comes to electing Presidents.  They like the idea of electing someone who has shown that they can administer a budget and implement reforms.  Debating and TV abilities matter, too, of course but experience of life and CEO-type skills are also highly prized.   If Conservatives are serious about localism a new generation of city mayors might emerge over the next twenty years.  An ability to run a city might be a better way of identifying future cabinet ministers and leaders... better, even, than a Snoozenight interrogation.

Comments

[Rick]

"An ability to run a city might be a better way of identifying future cabinet ministers and leaders"

Not likely at all. Cities are unimportant today unlike in the days of Joseph Chamberlain and his Birmingham powerbase. Manchester is far lessc significant today than in 1850, same for Sunderland or Sheffield or Huddersfield.

Cities are unimportant and subject to The Treasury. They cannot issue Bonds, they cannot tax businesses, they cannot run schools, fire services, they have no police force, and many no longer have courts - cities are remnants of an earlier age and wholly insignificant when set against The treasury which lays down targets on street lighting, cycle lanes etc.

[malcolm]

Very well put editor.Like you I thought many of Paxmans question were largely irrelevant in finding out what sort of leader of the opposition and more importantly PM would be if he is elected.
The manner in which Paxman carries out these interviews is also becoming seriously counterproductive.Sure, if a politician evades the question by all means ask it again (Paxman used to be good at this-see Michael Howard) but the overwhelming sneering at EVERY answer really doesn't achieve this.

[petersmith]

Paxman didn't seriously grill Cameron at all. He let him off the hook precisely because he so badly wanted to skewer him. Paxman could have revealed a lot had he been properly forensic. Cameron was much better able to control the situation than Davis.

Michael Gove's article (although an echo of something done before - I think by Craig Brown) was clever, and shows how these guys have got their act together. All this is good news. If we're going to have a leader with no substance, no compass, it's a relief that at least he's genuinely good at spin.

[michael]

What is substance?

Something Cameron now admits to taking.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

The latest Davis campaign e-mail smacks of pure desperation...

"David Davis used the interview to strongly defend his plans to cut taxes, while David Cameron focused on the issues of drugs, 24-hour drinking and changing the Conservative Party’s name."

[Stephen Alley]

So taking the logic to its natural conclusion:

Ken Livingstone for Prime Minister

[Derek]

What has to be taken into account is that these Paxman interviews are only 20 minutes long, and so they cannot be all that much "in depth". Also they are done as entertainment as well as to please the purists. Surely no one can deny that they do represent a stiff test of an interviewee's ability to think on his feet, as well as an examination of their consistency and intellectual robustness. After seeing the two interviews I now believe Paxmans' reputation has remained intact and intend to defend his integrity against these scurrilous accusations.

[Tom Ainsworth]

Cameron has indicated he wants to get away from 'Punch and Judy' politics. I hope he does, and that his example will prompt a change in the behaviour of other politicians. When I was twelve I went on a school trip to the House of Commons. I was amazed and appalled by the way MPs shouted and jeered at each other during PMQs and had to be told to pipe down by Betty Boothroyd. Things are just as bad today, and I'm sure it puts a lot of young people and women off taking an interest in politics. I don't like to lecture, but it really is embarrassing and pathetic. I'm not too optimistic that DC will be able to change this, but I hope he tries.

[Lancake]

Great posting Editor. Really hit the nail on the head.

Paxo is too much the centre of attention in interviews. They are aggressive but not forensic. Dimbleby's the same on QT - always trying to interject with a pithy comment to show off his own knowledge.

As you say, would be much better to probe deeply into an interviwee's thoughts, rather than trying to catch them out.

[Simon C]

Is Newsnight seriously trying to suggest that Gove's spoof put Paxman off his stroke?

Come off it!

If that's right, it reflects terribly badly on Paxman.

Cameron handled him well, no doubt about it - & much better than any Conservative leader in a long time. The planned counter-attack worked well.

But the Editor is quite right - Paxman's line of questioning was pretty poorly-thought through. If he had wanted to ask some difficult questions, he need have looked no further than this website...

Q: You have put Darfur at the centre of your foreign policy, and have said that the Conservative party needs to say as much or more about Darfur than it does about Zimbabwe?

DC: Yes

Q: So what's your policy on Darfur?

DC: We should have pressurised the UN more, and it would have made a series of interventions....um..err

(this was the gist of his actual answer to this question, as put by the Editor a few days ago).

Similarly - his environment policy might have come under a little scrutiny. He could have been asked directly what classification particular drugs should be given. Since he has said that he will abide by the party's policy decision on drugs, he might have been asked what role the party will have in the formation of policy. At what point will he give the party a clear lead, and at what point will he use a more collegiate approach? (Good leadership is not incompatible with a collegiate approach, before an avalanche starts).

So, I'm inclined to agree - what is the point of Paxman? is he becoming a parody of his former self?

[petersmith]

"Cameron has indicated he wants to get away from 'Punch and Judy' politics."

This is the kind of thing that sounds nice but doesn't work on closer examination. Our system relies on legislation being tested by each side making the best argument for and against (as in our courts). Good legislation should survive this opposition, weak legislation shouldn't.

Oppositional politics will inevitably include some degree of Punch and Judy (plus we do need some entertainment - would you all be on this blog if it was just high-minded discussion of policy?)

The alternative to an oppositional style is expert scrutiny. This is great when it works, but it doesn't guarantee proper testing on a consistent basis.

My view is you need both types. Paxman has his value. Don't forget, we have not only Paxman but Humphrys and two Dimblebys. All with different styles.

[Editor]

Rick: "Cities are unimportant and subject to The Treasury. They cannot issue Bonds, they cannot tax businesses, they cannot run schools, fire services, they have no police force, and many no longer have courts - cities are remnants of an earlier age and wholly insignificant when set against The treasury which lays down targets on street lighting, cycle lanes etc."

I agree with what you say, Rick, which is why I talked about "a new generation of city mayors might emerge over the next twenty year" after the Tories had been serious about localism. I'm not saying that experience of today's local govt is an ideal preparation although some of Britain's best Tories can be found in local govt: Sandy Bruce-Lockhart stands out, for example.

[Selsdon Man]

Simple answer to Ed's question - NONE WHATSOVER.

[Selsdon Man]

What do you make of this comment at the end of Mr Gove's spoof?

"As part of its Children in Need effort this year the Beeb is inviting viewers to bid for historic broadcasting memorabilia. Although the Children in Need enterprise can seem stale (Andrew Marr and Jeremy Vine once more camping it up by belting out rock classics in body-hugging outfits for all the world like Fellows of All Souls turning up on Stars in their Eyes), I am genuinely excited by the potential of selling off wasting BBC assets for charity. My only criticism is that the items I really want to see auctioned aren’t on sale.

If you visit the BBC Children in Need website you can bid for one of Zoe Ball’s dresses from Strictly Come Dancing or the black leather chair from which Ronnie Corbett delivered his comic monologues.

But could we please bid for items even more recherché — the caravan used by Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen, the dress worn by the tragic transvestite Emily Howard in Little Britain, the uniform sported by Servalan in Blakes Seven or even the mascara worn by Natasha Kaplinsky on Breakfast News."

Answers to feedback at cameroncampaign.org

I dont consider camerons supposed use of cocaine as a 'barely relevant detail'. He says he has made 'mistakes', well, many people in our prisons systems have made similar mistakes. Are we to forgive them their mistakes as we are him? Anything less would surely be hypocritical.
If this leadership campaign has shown anything, its that personality traits are important in politics, if hypocrisy is one of his traits, i feel thats quite relevant. Afterall, Cameron has generally shifted the contest from policy to personality...

[Kate Castle]

Cameron dealt as well with Paxman as any politician I can think of. To be honest is it just me or is Paxman moving further away from serious journalist interviewer to become newsnights equivalent of Anne Robinson. The constant interruptions preventing the respondent to answer are getting very annoying.
For someone keen to end spin David Davis' campaign email today leaves a lot to be desired.
"David Davis has today reaffirmed his opposition to changing the licensing laws to allow 24-hour drinking across Britain. His comments were made as he was questioned by reporters this morning following David Cameron’s comments in support of the law change on Newsnight last night."

"David Davis used the interview to strongly defend his plans to cut taxes, while David Cameron focused on the issues of drugs, 24-hour drinking and changing the Conservative Party’s name."
Cameron didn't back 24 hour drinking and the review of his 'topics' is so implicitly spun it is embarrassing.
Don't be a fool DD, we want you to be part of DC's cabinet.

[James Maskell]

Sandy Bruce Lockhart has recently left as leader of Kent County Council. He remains in the Local Government Association though.

[Rick]

"Sandy Bruce Lockhart has recently left as leader of Kent County Council. "

Was the great Robin H Bruce-Lockhart his grandfather ?

[Wat Tyler]

Paxman has turned into a caricature of himself. But how do we get rid of him? He works for a tax-funded quango that doesn't need to listen to its customers.

And no politician is going to insist on it for fear of being called chicken. Anyway, the BBC gives all that lovely airtime to those ugly showbiz types.

The relationship between politicians and the MSM is extremely unhealthy at the best of times- tax funding our biggest broadcaster makes it even worse.

For democracy's sake, roll on privatisation.

[Rick]

Mr Tyler, why were the Conservatives so afraid of de-criminalising non-payment of the TV licence fee ? Simply making it a civil offence rather than using The Crown to enforce payment would render it a subscription and not a tax.

I am surprised that no Conservative politician ever throws a spanner into a BBC interview when questioned on tax cuts by suggesting making the TV licence voluntary so people can show appreciation by paying more rather than a universal poll tax. Noone has explained why a 66 year old pension on £75/week should pay £2/week to fund Fiona Bruce on £400.000 pa.

No politician thinks this is inequitable apparently, nor that BBC journalists have TV, VCR, and Licence Fee, Newspapers etc paid for by the BBC.