Best interviewer?

Dave!

Just got the idea from the George Galloway thread

Who do ye think is the best interviewer on TV now? And I suppose in recent history too! Who can force even the most evasive of politicians to answer a question? Who is able to tame (to use a feline pun ) the likes of George Galloway in debate?

There's alot of mention of Jeremy Paxman, I find him quite good as well. He f*cking wrecks my head the way he carries out his interviews:p, but I do accept that he is very talented at what he does.

Who do you think?

Feel free to post some video clips of them working their magic, if you're so inclined

ps. should I post a new thread about Best reporter, or will I incorporate it into this thread? Can't decide

ateam

John Bowman and Miriam O'Callaghan are good...but I suppose Brian Farrell was pretty good at getting the best out of an interviewee.

Dave!

aww man, funny you should mention Miriam O Callaghan, cos my mam was watching her show last night, so I saw her interviewing Eddie Hobbs, and I thought she was atrocious! :eek: She kept cutting him off mid-sentence, or before he made his point (this was on stuff like how much allowance he gives his kids, it wasn't him defending himself). She reminded me of Ryan Tubridy as well in that she kept repeating questions about irrelevent sh*t (eg. Ryan Tubridy spent about half an hour asking the Taoiseach about "the yellow suit" -- that story being about a decade old at this stage)

I was totally unimpressed to be honest, but each to their own!

toffeeman

DaveMcG wrote:

aww man, funny you should mention Miriam O Callaghan, cos my mam was watching her show last night, so I saw her interviewing Eddie Hobbs, and I thought she was atrocious! :eek: She kept cutting him off mid-sentence, or before he made his point (this was on stuff like how much allowance he gives his kids, it wasn't him defending himself)....

I was totally unimpressed to be honest, but each to their own!

She has really gone over to the dark side.

I saw that interview and it was crazy how she is able to turn off the serious inner jounalist. Hobbs gets talking about how he reckons a government minister is trying to get him stitched up on criminal charges (WTF?) Just as it's getting really juicy and you reckon O'Callaghan will dig a little deeper... she bats the eye lids, flicks the hair and asks the kiddie allowance question.... My jaw dropped. You could see Hobbs smiling in relief at the sudden change in subject.

Prime-Time-Miriam would be spinning in her grave! (If she was a seperate person who has been killed off and buried under Saturday-night-Miriam's new wardrobe of horrible clothes...)

DMC

Thats exactly the same as Pat Kenny. She can't do light, but her show is more cringe worthy than the Late Late, and that is bad enough.

As for others... John Bowman is one of the best, Q&A is one of the best programmes out there and he can hold the chair like no other. Brian Farrell in his pomp. I hope he's around for the next election on RTÉ, as much as the Dimblebys past and present have made Election nights on BBC their own, Brian Farrell is the face of election coverage here.

As I mentioned over on the other thread... John Humphrys and Paxman, and Jon Snow. I often find that Adam Boulton on Sky News... well, he's too close to the action. I have a lot of time for Nick Robinson, BBC Politcal Editor, in time he will be the man.

Dave!

I agree about John Bowman, he's quite good on Q&A. I don't really like the way he deals with questions from the audience though. It's often students and the likes who ask the questions, and they aren't used to dealing with veterans like himself, and he has a habit I've noticed of rather than passing a question to his guests, he takes it himself, and kinda rips the questioner apart (usually challenging them on some of the points). It just seems a bit unfair, that's all, cos himself and his guests are more used to it.

But he is quite good with the guests, and he handles them well.

Oh and another thing I've noticed about him is that he always seems to be in a rush I know they're on a time-limit (although it isn't broadcast live is it? not sure...), but he takes it to the extreme!

DMC

Its about getting across all the points, and touch on most of the guests expertise. So to make sure that all guests get questions, and answers across.

As for handling the audience, well.... its kinda common knowledge that the asker has an agenda of their own

Its recorded at about 8pm on the evening, afaik.

DMC

Tony Benn, the former Labour cabinet minister, turns the tables in this mornings Media Guardian...

Quizzing the inquisitors

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1838531,00.html

TV interviewers had the tables turned on them by a political veteran who wants journalists to take more time to quiz their subjects and to be less aggressive

Tony Benn
Monday August 7, 2006
The Guardian

Commanding audiences of millions on the radio and television every day, political interviewers hold a uniquely powerful position with far-reaching influence. Current affairs luminaries such as Jeremy Paxman and Jon Snow help to define what is newsworthy. It is not just who they interview but how they introduce the interviewee and even the language used in the interview. These decisions inevitably shape the way we think about the key issues of policy and politics.

Having been an interviewee myself, on the sharp end of many an interrogation, I have often wondered what my questioner hoped to discover from their interview with me. I have also speculated about how they go about selecting both their interviewees and their interview questions and why they so frequently practise the ungentlemanly art of the interruption.

In a bid to answer some of these questions I have made a film for Channel 4 in which I had a chance to turn the tables on four of the biggest stars of political interviewing: John Humphrys, Jon Snow, Nick Robinson and Jeremy Paxman.

Gladiatorial style

I wanted my interviews to be different to the quick-fire, time-pressured interviews their roles demand. I wanted to ask them how they saw their job, allowing them the luxury of enough time to answer at length and only putting further questions when further clarification seemed necessary. Most of all, I wanted to avoid falling into the trap of adopting an argumentative style so often associated with the interviews they conduct. This wasn't to be a gladiatorial-style contest with winners and losers but a different way of approaching the interview where the winner would be the audience.

Without exception, Jeremy, Jon, Nick and John seem to believe that interviews have to be tough to be effective - though Jeremy denied he was aggressive, saying: "I don't think I am. I would use a word like straightforward." But I believe that by deliberately adopting a combative manner, interviews have been turned into a spectator sport.

Humphrys, famed for his interruptions on the Today programme, was surprisingly candid when I asked him about his approach. He told me he does get carried away occasionally. saying: "I do sometimes get a bit irritated, and a little bit annoyed, and then, if I interrupt unfairly, and I do sometimes, I overdo it sometimes, I am aware of that and cross with myself." He agreed that an element of entertainment value has crept into political interviewing but considered it a necessary evil to hold listeners' attention.

I disagree with that approach - I strongly believe that a belligerent manner inhibits the person interviewed. Feeling under siege, they struggle to get their case across, retreating to the safety of repeating the same things time and again or entering the fight in the hope he or she may emerge the victor - which is rarely the case.

In fact, I believe my interviews with the four illustrate an alternative method which relaxes the interviewee and draws out the important information without the theatricals we have all come to expect.

But it is not only the way interviews are conducted that troubled me; I wanted to understand how the interviewees are selected. It seems to me they are too often plucked from a narrow range of groups comprising MPs, ministers, and shadow ministers and experts - who are treated more respectfully. These people become a self-selected group of established news makers. Their utterances become news and are therefore powerful in the eyes of the interviewer. However we rarely hear from people who are not considered newsworthy but who are actually the real power brokers, working behind the scenes but still immensely influential such as the trade unionists, the secretary general of the UN, the head of MI5, council leaders or a newspaper proprietor.

And there is another important group of people I would call the "pioneers", whose ideas `may today be regarded as totally beyond the pale but become the conventional wisdom of tomorrow. How would Paxman have dealt with Gandhi, or Snow with Mrs Pankhurst, or Humphrys with Nelson Mandela at a time when they were seen as both irrelevant and dangerous?

Even when political interviewers end up speaking to someone who exists outside the corridors of Whitehall, the way they are introduced can affect the audience's take on their views. I put it to the interviewers that introducing someone as a "Labour rebel", for example, might taint listeners, and viewers' perspective: automatically giving the audience the opportunity to discount their opinions because, after all, they are a "rebel".

Robinson told me that using, "a form of shorthand, a shrinking cast," is a result of time constraints. "I get on air for an average news bulletin the length of a Sun newspaper editorial," he said. "We're talking of low hundreds of words ... it's trying to get the audience to where you want them in terms of making sense of the story." He did concede there was a danger of affecting the audience's judgment but argued that issuing factual information would mean you would "end up telling people nothing at all".

To me, this lends weight to my case that if political interviewers carried out longer, more relaxed interviews, they would not only discover more information, they would produce a more factual account. I found some sympathy for this argument from Paxman who said: "It's a fight you have every day with the editor - 'how long have we got for this? Four minutes? You know, we need eight' - well you have these scraps every day, usually you lose, you just do it in the time." Snow, however, took a more pragmatic view, telling me: "If you can't say it in 30 seconds, it isn't worth saying."

Enormous power

I was interested to see who the interviewers thought they were accountable to. As a member of parliament for more than 50 years I was employed by 60,000 people - everyone in my constituency - and if they became dissatisfied with my performance they could get rid of me. Whereas it seems that political interviewers wield enormous power yet aren't necessarily accountable to anyone. All four told me they were accountable to the audience, and to some degree the ratings. Snow told me: "Sometimes people write to me and say, 'I'll never view you again, so I write back and say, 'give me one more chance, I've taken note of what you say' and I hope to get them to stay with us."

All the interviewers seemed united in what they hoped to get out of an interview - Humphrys described it as: "A better informed audience." Paxman said: "If you were looking for one sentence I suppose it would be that you're trying to find things out." While for Snow it is to: "Shine a light on what is going on, and if that causes trouble, well so be it."

While I have no doubt of their intentions and great respect for all four interviewers I do question whether they can ever reveal and expose the truths they wish to when so many important voices appear to be excluded from their programmes, when the language they use colours the audience's views before they have a chance to make their minds up and when their approach curbs the opportunity for a real debate. I hope that my programme will offer an alternative way of approaching the interview that could maybe, in Snow's words: "Shine a light on what is going on."

· Tony Benn - Interviewing the Interviewers is on Channel 4 on August 12 at 7pm

ateam

DMC wrote:

Its about getting across all the points, and touch on most of the guests expertise. So to make sure that all guests get questions, and answers across.

As for handling the audience, well.... its kinda common knowledge that the asker has an agenda of their own

Its recorded at about 8pm on the evening, afaik.

I think it's live...John always reads out viewer comments during the show, so it must be live.

FlutterinBantam

Áine Lawlor on Morning Ireland is one of the best..as is Sean O'Rourke...i wouldnt even rate O'Callaghan....she thinks big tits and blue eyes cut the mustard..... Not for the Bantam anahow:cool:

is_that_so

English
Gavin Esler
Jeremy Paxman
David Frost - still has it

Our bunch

Sean O'Rourke
Mark Little
Aine Lawlor
Miriam O'Callaghan - in her real job , not that "chat show"
Pat Kenny - on radio only

luckat

Vincent Browne, with his hilarous faux-naif air of astonishment.

FlutterinBantam

luckat wrote:

Vincent Browne, with his hilarous faux-naif air of astonishment.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... No way Jose.... the ORIGINAL dumbass

DublinWriter

The Dimbleby brothers and John 'The Daddy' Humphries.

monument

John Snow on Channel 4 comes to mind.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Ha ha ha ha ha.... No way Jose.... the ORIGINAL dumbass

What an intelligent, non-“dumbass” argument…

While we're talking about Vincent Browne, the interview he did with Pat Rabbitte (published in Village) could be in the running for Rabbitte’s (or possibly any Irish politician’s) most challenging interview. Rabbitte usually doesn’t allow history and facts get in the way of his spin.

Telefís

The problem with Vincent is that he’s too inconsistent – at times acutely tuned in, perceptive and sharp, and other times just so full of bluster that it becomes tiresome, especially when he begins limiting the guest’s opportunity to respond.

In the UK I would rank Jon Snow as the very best – exceptionally well-informed, experienced and heavy-hitting where necessary, but is fundamentally highly personable too – the best possible combination in an interviewer.

Gavin Esler is up there too – he is great in studio, if a little underwhelming, but especially good in the field. He makes fantastic reports on occasion for Newsnight.

Paxman obviously, but is frankly too much of a distraction as a media darling at this stage to be 100% effective.


At home, I would rank Áine Lawlor, Pat Kenny, John Bowman and Cathal MacCoille as best.

Lawlor is very astute, well-read, personable and sounds fantastic too

Kenny similarly, though arguably that bit more well-informed. It’s often said that the high profile Late Late is wasted on his formulaic style, but it isn’t said enough how much he is wasted on the Late Late. Irish television is deprived of a current affairs great because of him being where he is. Also great chairing debate, and is wasted in that regard too. His retirement is coming up in the next 3-4 years, but it’s unlikely he’ll bow out of broadcasting so suddenly from such a hectic schedule; one would hope he’ll take up another weekly television programme of some kind.

Bowman is a broadcasting legend, though not for all the best reasons. He is incredibly well-read of course, a noted historian, and veteran of Irish political analysis, but doesn’t quite have that populist edge to pull him into the mainstream of ‘greatness’. He is marvellously astute in interviewing though, unlike anybody else I know: he sits there, listening acutely to the guest, soaking up every word and inference like a giant (frumpily dressed) sponge, and takes his leads from that – the very best way of doing business. However his to-camera deliverances leave a lot to be desired, and he could do a lot to lighten the presentation a bit.

And I would not agree that Q&A is an excellent programme – turning it on and hearing the first drearily asked question by some geek in the audience - that incidentally was there last week, and the week before, and oh, the week before that too - followed by Bowman’s dull repeating of the same, and then silence while sleep-inducing Brennan or O’Dea or Mr Nutty Professor from NUI gathers their thoughts (on what is a scripted question anyway), would send you to an early grave. Bowman makes little attempt to liven things up, though yes he does try on the rare occasion towards the end, the general presentation of the show is appalling, with vision mixing, camerawork, lighting and music remarkably mundane and parochial, and the shame shower of academics, trade unionists and general loud mouths in the miniscule 60-strong audience each week. To be fair to it, the biggest problem are the guests who are generally so woefully inarticulate, boring, evasive and unopinionated – a world of difference from the fast-paced, captivating, stimulating BBC Question Time, where the guests are also not shown the questions beforehand!!!

Brian Farrell is also a legend, but more out of touch than Bowman ever would be. I like him a lot, and he’s fantasic in elections, but certainly what little I know of him from his final 5-8 years on Prime Time he never lived up to image often portrayed. He never got into the nitty gritty in interviews, always focused on the bigger picture, constantly kept things moving along, rarely stopped to work an issue out, formulaically flitted between guests to allow each a balanced amount of time which is not the way to conduct a television discussion when it impedes the flow of information, and generally he was quite confrontational and not very personable on camera at times. To be fair to him, he did operate at a time when Prime Time was even more constricted on time than it is now, and was constantly forced to be brief and cut across guests. Also politics was more his field, not more social issues that he often had to deal with. I also sincerely hope he makes a return for Election 2007. I think it was Bowman, Dobson and Farrell in Election 2002.

Incidentally Dobson could be up there to amongst the best, but we don’t get to see enough of the man in action to make any sort of objective analysis of him.


Q&A is transmitted live, though used to be recorded up to about six years ago I think. It makes the world of difference.

santosubito

Joe Duffy - by far the best.
Paddy O'Gorman
(Every reporter should study them to see how to get the most out of the interviewee)
Sean O'Rourke
Pat Kenny (on radio only)
Adam Boulton
Andy Marr
Rachael English
Gerry Ryan
Matt Cooper is getting better

lostexpectation

Bowman
is orla barry the women with short brown hair that does primetime occasionally
not Miraim O'Callaghan after her disgraceful interview with loach
not matt cooper he has gotten into opnion journalism now

FlutterinBantam

monument wrote:

John Snow on Channel 4 comes to mind.



What an intelligent, non-“dumbass” argument…

While we're talking about Vincent Browne, the interview he did with Pat Rabbitte (published in Village) could be in the running for Rabbitte’s (or possibly any Irish politician’s) most challenging interview. Rabbitte usually doesn’t allow history and facts get in the way of his spin.

Oh dear.!!... terribly sorry old boy that I am not a card carrying member of the Vincent Browne fan club...I listen to Browne when he is on at 2200 RTE1 and to put him up there with the "best" interviewers makes me laugh.
he ,in my opinion,is a smart ass, who likes to try to bully guests by constantly interrupting them,trying to confuse them,trying to project himself and his publication at all times,while trying to act the "gombeen "man as well.

Now I find it entertaining sure enough,but as serious interviewing goes ,it doesn't cut the mustard with me...I also bought the"Village" once and after discovering several spelling mistakes in the opening page and a lot of contributors named "browne" she got the green bin kinda rapid like.....

Hope thats not too non dumbass

jdivision

Miriam O'Callaghan is awful, even on Prime Time. Always goes after FF politicians on the wrong point (possibly because her brother's seeking a nomination). Mark Little was a good reporter but can't handle being an anchor; John Bowman is rubbish, he won't let people get hung out to dry, he goes out of his way to stop politicians being embarresed. Kenny's fairly good on radio, Browne can be brilliant sometimes. Paxman is brilliant, back here O'Rourke can be good but only on occasion.

flogen

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Áine Lawlor on Morning Ireland is one of the best..as is Sean O'Rourke...i wouldnt even rate O'Callaghan....she thinks big tits and blue eyes cut the mustard..... Not for the Bantam anahow:cool:

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Ha ha ha ha ha.... No way Jose.... the ORIGINAL dumbass

Flutter; personal abuse is not acceptable in this forum.
If you disagree with someone, say so but back it up with a justification and avoid stupid remarks.
I won't warn you or anyone else about this again.
(do not reply to this post, stay on topic)

DMC

is_that_so wrote:

David Frost - still has it

I wouldn't agree with Frosty, as to me, he really got sychophantic towards the end on his Sunday morning show on BBC1, prior to the last UK general election. In fact, he's always had that (interviews during the Thatcher era, US Presidents down the years) and thats why he'll never be in my list.

A remarkable TV legend, but not the best political interviewer.

FlutterinBantam

santosubito wrote:

Joe Duffy - by far the best.
Paddy O'Gorman
(Every reporter should study them to see how to get the most out of the interviewee)
Sean O'Rourke
Pat Kenny (on radio only)
Adam Boulton
Andy Marr
Rachael English
Gerry Ryan
Matt Cooper is getting better

With all due respects the first two basically interview people who mostly WANT to tell their story.....trying to stop them can be the problem.

Current affairs interviews where the subject has his/her own agenda and wants to put a particular "spin" on things is an entirely different scenario.