Tom Meagher Interview ABC Australia

Arpa

Just caught the interview with Tom Meagher on Six one. They had a segment of him being interviewed by the Australian station ABC. I don't know if anyone else saw it but I would like to hear peoples opinions on one particular aspect of the interview style.

While newsworthy I thought it a little much the way the reporter, Louise Milligan, asked him a particular question.

Tom was obviously distraught and on the verge of breaking down for the whole interview. I feel she recognised this and posed him a horrible question in an obvious attempt to draw tears from the man for the purposes of making compelling TV.

After asking him a few questions about the trial and sentencing she went in for the kill with the question,

"Now just casting your mind back, apart from the reasons we're here today to Jill, if I was to meet Jill today, what sort of person would I have met?"

Tom began his reply, "You would have met...." following which he couldn't say more and began to weep.

The question was obviously designed to bring back his memories of her and draw out his emotional side.

Why did she need to ask this question and what was it going to achieve other than bring back emotional memories of his deceased wife?

When ever I meet someone who is recently bereaved I out of respect avoid questions that will make them dwell upon the memories of their loved one. It does not serve any use and this interviewer I feel asked him this question purely for a reaction for the cameras. It was despicable in my opinion and she should be reprimanded severely.

I almost felt like she preyed on him to make heart wrenching TV. It was stomach churning.

I know the man is distraught and has been through a lot and could have broken down at any moment but that is exactly why Louise Milligan should have been careful with her questioning to achieve some newsworthy information without probing him for emotional breakdown live on Australian TV.

Anybody get the feeling she used him for her own purposes?

Tipsy McSwagger

Happens on The Late Late Show every Friday night.

Jester252

If it bleeds it leads.

endacl

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Happens on The Late Late Show every Friday night.

Safer territory there though. Nobody watches it.

Vorsprung

Standard Australian TV - absolute bottom of the barrel stuff across almost all channels.

Rasheed

I don't know, having not actually seen the interview, but I don't think it was that bad of a question.

Was her aim not just to humanise Jill, let people have an idea of what she was like, not just be another headline or statistic?

The Backwards Man

Saw that and thought it was abit car crash alright, but that's what sells these days and it's not just the Australians that employ these tactics.

Don't blame the media though, they're just giving the audience what they want.

Gamayun

A similar thing happened a few years back on the BBC when Hazel Irvine provoked tears from John Higgins after he just won the snooker world championship. She referred to his his recently deceased father completely unnecessarily. Nothing to be gained from the question other than an emotional response.

the groutch

for a minute there I thought this was an interview with Alf Stewart (Ray Meagher)

MadsL

"...tell us how you feel..."

has me reaching for the remote.

HondaSami

The interview was always going to be about his wife and obviously it was going to be emotional for him, perhaps it was too soon for him to give the interview.
The questions asked are what you would expect to be asked imo.

sunflower27

The interview was always going to be emotional and I agree that the question is a fairly standard one. I also think it was maybe too soon for the guy to be interviewed like that.

God love him, the pain he went through and is going through I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

IM0

well isnt that just lovely. the poor woman worked for them afterall and then they do this to her widower

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Welcoem to the world of journalism.

mikom

Give me your tears, gypsy.

sunflower27

IM0 wrote: »

well isnt that just lovely. the poor woman worked for them afterall and then they do this to her widower

I presume a) she was paid to work there and b) Tom knew that the public would want to know about Jill and questions about what she was like were bound to be asked.

Alice1

Hm, didn't see the interview myself so can't really comment. What I thought was a bit "odd" was, the judge gave a lighter sentence because the killer pleaded guilty eventually, thus saving her husband and relatives having to listen to the horror of what happened. Fair enough. However, the judge then chose to quote extensively from the police interviews with the killer. He even made a point of saying the attack was so brutal that even if she hadn't been strangled, she could have died of her injuries. Why on earth did he do that? What possible comfort could the family have taken from that?