We launched the first part of our new mini-series on political interviews yesterday, and it inspired a great number of responses from readers. Predictably, most followed a similar line: most interviews are pretty dreadful! It’s worth considering why that is. Does it come down to a drop in journalistic skill, a lack of courage from pollies, or a terrible combination of the two. What do audiences actually want? Stay tuned for more in the series. 

 

On the “lost art” of the political interview

Leslie Heimann writes: The art of probing and verbal sparring is long gone. Gone because neither party is up for it! Most politicians don’t want to play the game — or can’t — and media representatives are either time-poor, interested in only sensationalism, or just plain incompetent.

One might say, who cares anyway? Both sides are typecast. Frankly the Sydney media munchkins are all vapid and the pathetic attempts of those such as Tony Jones to “trap” pollies show how hopeless media has become. Politicians, however, are just plain stupid in their behaviour never shifting off script.

Clearly it should be self-evident to anyone with perhaps just a scintilla of “nous” that they need to have a presence and a reputation. Think how someone such as Bob Hawke or Paul Keating or Robert Menzies always loved to take on the interviewer — and usually won — thereby getting recognised in a good way. These men and women did answered (sometimes stupid) questions in style. The media can’t change much, but politicians can — it’s called earning respect.

Peter Carter writes: Sarah Ferguson is a great interviewer (e.g. when she was standing in for Leigh Sales a while ago). She’s determined, not afraid to tell the pollie he/she is just plain wrong, and she does her homework. Leigh Sales by comparison is a bit of a lightweight, although she has occasional moments of good interviewing.

Peter Frank writes: There’s always the risk of making one’s assessments through partisan eyes: interviewers are never tough enough on the politicians one disagrees with, and just rude and aggressive to representatives from one’s own side of the aisle. Nevertheless, I’m not sure the “gotcha” style you describe merely applies to rookie interviewers. The ABC 7.30 host has been around some time now and still seems wedded to this technique (a bipartisan offender in my view) and regrettably not a patch on former hosts of a program that had previously been an evening fixture for me; I only ever watch nowadays if there’s a guest host.

Emma Alberici has mastered the art of asking sensible, follow-up questions in a courteous manner that often as not ultimately elicits an answer. I’d make pretty much identical comments about Sarah Ferguson, under whom 4 Corners seems to have regained some of its mojo.

Gumshoe writes: I do not think the “art”of political interviewing is dying. I think, though, that the education of politicians by media consultants has made it increasingly difficult for interviewers to conduct one. Those in “listener/viewer land” still crave to hear politicians being held to account but it has become –in the minds of the political class — thoroughly inexpedient to coherently explain themselves.

This is because they fear the inevitable attack from the other side. Politicians nowadays are fearful people and are –almost without exception — utterly incapable of articulating a cogent response to scaremongering from their political adversaries. So captive are they to the “other side”, they no longer speak to or for the citizens. Batting for their team is more vital than representing the constituency.

Ken Thompson writes: I think most politicians know the interviewer will only ask the same question three times without getting a real answer before moving on because the audience gets bored. They also know the interviewer has a very tight timeframe so all they need to do is take up as much time as they can by either stalling or repeating their same three talking points until the time’s up.

Most interviews are a waste of time. The interviewer knows it, the politician knows it and the audience knows it. It’s seen by all as a cheap form of entertainment with the politicians keeping their profiles as high as possible in the knowledge that politics is Hollywood for unattractive people.

 

On Israel’s massacre of Palestinians

James O’Neill writes: I was lecturing at the University of Bergen in the 1970s and a friend in the History Department told me that, in his view, there would never be peace in Israel/Palestine as long as a Jewish State occupied what was regarded by the non-Jewish population as “the sacred soil of Islam”. I didn’t agree at the time, thinking that a “two-state solution” was both possible and desirable. The events of the succeeding 40+ years have persuaded me I was wrong.

The only feasible solution is a secular singular state, and that is not going to happen. Israel will continue its ghastly progress to a completely fascist apartheid state, protected by the US veto and the support of moral and intellectual cowards such as infest Parliament House in Canberra. Expect many more such massacres.

Parrick writes: Last year on a visit to Israel on my way out of Ben Gurion airport, I took the time to read the wall posters celebrating the 120th anniversary of Zionism. Rundle is right, this Israeli government is not Zionist. Zionism has a deeply humanitarian core, one of equality and egalitarianism. It’s a far cry from the open fascism of the current Israeli government. Much is made in the 120-metre presentation of the inclusion and humanity of the Zionist message. The journey isn’t over until everyone is free. What a shame the Zionists were shouldered aside by the fascists.

 

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.