Iain Dale on the lost art of political interviewing
Probably the most effective and often the most devastating political interviewer that I ever watched was also the most polite.
Brian Walden was a former Labour MP but his style of interviewing was equally courteous and equally challenging whoever he was interviewing. He would start his interviews with friendly and gentle questions which gave the politician being interviewed a clear opportunity to stake out his or her position, and for the first ten minutes or Walden would do nothing more challenging than try to ensure that every opportunity had been given to stake out that position clearly and precisely.
And then, usually about ten minutes in - BANG! With equal courtesy he would take some aspect of the position staked out which could potentially give rise to difficult issues and start exploring those issues, in manner which despite his gentle and cultured tones put the interviewee in the position of a batsman at whom the bowler, who had been sending down slow and predictable deliveries which could easily be despatched to the boundary, was now suddenly lobbing bags of nitroglycerin.
Similar skills were once displayed by other great interviewers such as David Frost.
Iain Dale argued in a persuasive article last month, which you can read here, that instead of trying to tease out what politicians stood for so that it could be made the subject of informed criticism, interviewers today all too often think that they are in a competition to see who can be more aggressive or do most to trick the person interviewed into a gaffe.
Aggressive questioning certainly has a place in the armoury of most good interviewers, but I rather agree with Iain that the best interviewers are as interested in making sure that the public is informed as in seeking fireworks and in the strengths of the interviewee's position as in his or her weaknesses.
Brian Walden was a former Labour MP but his style of interviewing was equally courteous and equally challenging whoever he was interviewing. He would start his interviews with friendly and gentle questions which gave the politician being interviewed a clear opportunity to stake out his or her position, and for the first ten minutes or Walden would do nothing more challenging than try to ensure that every opportunity had been given to stake out that position clearly and precisely.
And then, usually about ten minutes in - BANG! With equal courtesy he would take some aspect of the position staked out which could potentially give rise to difficult issues and start exploring those issues, in manner which despite his gentle and cultured tones put the interviewee in the position of a batsman at whom the bowler, who had been sending down slow and predictable deliveries which could easily be despatched to the boundary, was now suddenly lobbing bags of nitroglycerin.
Similar skills were once displayed by other great interviewers such as David Frost.
Iain Dale argued in a persuasive article last month, which you can read here, that instead of trying to tease out what politicians stood for so that it could be made the subject of informed criticism, interviewers today all too often think that they are in a competition to see who can be more aggressive or do most to trick the person interviewed into a gaffe.
Aggressive questioning certainly has a place in the armoury of most good interviewers, but I rather agree with Iain that the best interviewers are as interested in making sure that the public is informed as in seeking fireworks and in the strengths of the interviewee's position as in his or her weaknesses.
Comments