This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/20/the-aggressive-political-interview-its-not-just-sales-and-alberici

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The aggressive political interview: it's not just Sales and Alberici The aggressive political interview: it's not just Sales and Alberici
(about 3 hours later)
Malcolm Turnbull probably thought he was being judicious and restrained when he suggested that ABC journalists Leigh Sales (of 7.30) and Emma Alberici (of Lateline) could be “less aggressive” and “more forensic” in their interviewing techniques.Malcolm Turnbull probably thought he was being judicious and restrained when he suggested that ABC journalists Leigh Sales (of 7.30) and Emma Alberici (of Lateline) could be “less aggressive” and “more forensic” in their interviewing techniques.
He may have shown us instead that inside every Liberal politician – leather jacket or no – lurks a dinosaur. His patronising advice, delivered in conversation with Andrew Bolt, the most relentless attack-dog journalist in the country, was reserved for the “lady journalists” – not their male colleagues Tony Jones and Chris Uhlmann.He may have shown us instead that inside every Liberal politician – leather jacket or no – lurks a dinosaur. His patronising advice, delivered in conversation with Andrew Bolt, the most relentless attack-dog journalist in the country, was reserved for the “lady journalists” – not their male colleagues Tony Jones and Chris Uhlmann.
Under the circumstances you had to wonder who might be more insulted: the professional women given gratutious advice by a government minister? Or their male counterparts who, going by Turnbull’s comments, seem soft touches by comparison? Under the circumstances you had to wonder who might be more insulted: the professional women given gratuitous advice by a government minister or their male counterparts who, going by Turnbull’s comments, seem soft touches by comparison?
Turnbull of all people ought to know that if Sales and Alberici are aggressive, it’s because aggression has become the standard by which television interviewing has come to be judged, and the default posture for all of those who talk to politicians for a living.Turnbull of all people ought to know that if Sales and Alberici are aggressive, it’s because aggression has become the standard by which television interviewing has come to be judged, and the default posture for all of those who talk to politicians for a living.
It wasn’t always this way, and it’s taken time to get here. But the confrontational style that is now de rigeur in political interviewing across the English-speaking world tells us something important about where liberal democracies are at now. It wasn’t always this way, and it’s taken time to get here. But the confrontational style that is now de rigueur in political interviewing across the English-speaking world tells us something important about where liberal democracies are at now.
The quaintness of political interviews in the early years of TV broadcasting is one index of how far we’ve come. In the 1950s and 1960s, whether in Australia, the UK, or the USA, journalists were relatively deferential, and politicians at least gave the appearance of considering and answering their questions – this interview with Robert Menzies is a good example. The quaintness of political interviews in the early years of TV broadcasting is one index of how far we’ve come. In the 1950s and 1960s, whether in Australia, the UK or the US, journalists were relatively deferential, and politicians at least gave the appearance of considering and answering their questions – this interview with Robert Menzies is a good example.
Often enough politicians were so in command of the situation that they were able to simply break off the conversation in order to read out a prepared statement. Even where the conversation did flow, it was frequently clubby and non-confrontational, as it is in this tete-a-tete between John F Kennedy and correspondents from the three major networks in 1962. Often enough politicians were so in command of the situation they were able to simply break off the conversation in order to read out a prepared statement. Even where the conversation did flow, it was frequently clubby and non-confrontational, as it is in this tête-à-tête between John F Kennedy and correspondents from the three major networks in 1962.
This isn’t just about the politesse of early television broadcasting in general. It’s because, at this time, journalism and journalists were unashamedly a part of the establishment they were paid to scrutinise.This isn’t just about the politesse of early television broadcasting in general. It’s because, at this time, journalism and journalists were unashamedly a part of the establishment they were paid to scrutinise.
This was the period of what Daniel Hallin called journalism’s “High Modernism”, characterised by “political consensus, rooted in the New Deal and the Cold War … economic security, both for the society at large and for media industries specifically”.This was the period of what Daniel Hallin called journalism’s “High Modernism”, characterised by “political consensus, rooted in the New Deal and the Cold War … economic security, both for the society at large and for media industries specifically”.
Journalism was integral to Cold War liberalism, and journalists saw themselves as a part of the global struggle against communism. This all began to change in the late 1960s. Often the emergence of a more confrontational journalistic style is put down to the fall out from reporting on the Vietnam War, then later Watergate, and the rise of a new generation of investigative reporters. Journalism was integral to Cold War liberalism, and journalists saw themselves as a part of the global struggle against communism. This all began to change in the late 1960s. Often the emergence of a more confrontational journalistic style is put down to the fallout from reporting on the Vietnam war, then later Watergate, and the rise of a new generation of investigative reporters.
Such explanations ascribe too much causal power to journalists and their output. Just as important was the emergence of a more educated and affluent, and less deferential public, who in the midst of failed imperial wars and economic slowdown, wanted answers as to where things had gone wrong. Such explanations ascribe too much causal power to journalists and their output. Just as important was the emergence of a more educated and affluent and less deferential public who, in the midst of failed imperial wars and economic slowdown, wanted answers as to where things had gone wrong.
The populations of the English-speaking democracies were now more politically fragmented and divided against themselves, less likely to be involved in already-declining mass political parties, and less trusting of government and other institutions. Journalism contributed to this state of affairs, but many of its practitioners also felt bound to reflect it.The populations of the English-speaking democracies were now more politically fragmented and divided against themselves, less likely to be involved in already-declining mass political parties, and less trusting of government and other institutions. Journalism contributed to this state of affairs, but many of its practitioners also felt bound to reflect it.
Journalists were also starting to have the justifiable feeling that they’d been hoodwinked. In Australia and the USA they had been lied to over the course of the conflict in south-east Asia, Just as politicians had used journalists to bypass the more diffuse power of the old party organisations, they were beginning to bypass the media with more sophisticated forms of campaigning and messaging. Journalists were also starting to have the justifiable feeling they’d been hoodwinked. In Australia and the US they had been lied to over the course of the conflict in south-east Asia, Just as politicians had used journalists to bypass the more diffuse power of the old party organisations, they were beginning to bypass the media with more sophisticated forms of campaigning and messaging.
Television journalists also had to contend with the medium’s relentless demands for novelty, conflict, and entertainment. A politician caught stumbling, or better still in a lie, was great telly. Television journalists also had to contend with the medium’s relentless demands for novelty, conflict and entertainment. A politician caught stumbling, or better still in a lie, was great telly.
In the 1970s and 1980s, everything changed, and a kind of arms race began. More aggressive or probing forms of interviewing initially caused some politicians some uncomfortable moments (look at David Frost’s celebrated extraction of an apology from the elephant-like hide of Richard Nixon, or Richard Carleton’s notorious baiting of Bob Hawke).In the 1970s and 1980s, everything changed, and a kind of arms race began. More aggressive or probing forms of interviewing initially caused some politicians some uncomfortable moments (look at David Frost’s celebrated extraction of an apology from the elephant-like hide of Richard Nixon, or Richard Carleton’s notorious baiting of Bob Hawke).
Gradually, more sophisticated, television-savvy PR operatives allowed politicians to retain more control over when and how their message was delivered, and offered media training that helped politicians to maintain discipline even under the most hostile questioning. You can witness a mastery of this art in Margaret Thatcher’s interview with David Frost, where she steadfastly defends the indefensible sinking of the Argentine ship the Belgrano during the Falklands war.Gradually, more sophisticated, television-savvy PR operatives allowed politicians to retain more control over when and how their message was delivered, and offered media training that helped politicians to maintain discipline even under the most hostile questioning. You can witness a mastery of this art in Margaret Thatcher’s interview with David Frost, where she steadfastly defends the indefensible sinking of the Argentine ship the Belgrano during the Falklands war.
In response, journalists became yet more aggressive, or offered “meta-coverage”, reporting on the spin and PR techniques they were subjected to. This leads to further, or more frank attempts to manipulate and direct them. In response, journalists became yet more aggressive or offered “meta-coverage”, reporting on the spin and PR techniques they were subjected to. This leads to further or more frank attempts to manipulate and direct them.
As political communication scholar James Stanyer puts it, this became a “disdaining dynamic”, a mobile process of “mutual adaptation” and competitive evolution, where “political advocates have little option but continually to innovate and utilize new techniques for controlling the news agenda”, and where “journalists then respond to the manipulation in ever more strident ways.” As political communication scholar James Stanyer puts it, this became a “disdaining dynamic”, a mobile process of “mutual adaptation” and competitive evolution, where “political advocates have little option but continually to innovate and utilise new techniques for controlling the news agenda”, and where “journalists then respond to the manipulation in ever more strident ways”.
This all played out in political interviews, which are now locked into a familiar pattern: politicians are committed to saying only what they want to say, whatever questions may be asked, and the interviewer’s only hope is to crack this facade. The whole enterprise becomes essentially performative.This all played out in political interviews, which are now locked into a familiar pattern: politicians are committed to saying only what they want to say, whatever questions may be asked, and the interviewer’s only hope is to crack this facade. The whole enterprise becomes essentially performative.
Political interviews now tend to be ritualised confrontations where what’s mostly at stake is the capacity of a politician to maintain their persona under fire. Whether or not any new information emerges about policy or its implementation is rather beside the point.Political interviews now tend to be ritualised confrontations where what’s mostly at stake is the capacity of a politician to maintain their persona under fire. Whether or not any new information emerges about policy or its implementation is rather beside the point.
We can see this in the most celebrated political interviews of recent times. Kerry O’Brien’s most-remembered interviews include where he got Kevin Rudd to lose his temper after pestering him about the decline of his “political brand”.We can see this in the most celebrated political interviews of recent times. Kerry O’Brien’s most-remembered interviews include where he got Kevin Rudd to lose his temper after pestering him about the decline of his “political brand”.
Or the one where he got Tony Abbott to tie himself up in knots and suggest we get promises from him in writing. Abbott was also involved in another infamous car crash interview where he greeted Mark Riley’s questions about some ill-advised comments in Afghanistan with a vaguely menacing silence.Or the one where he got Tony Abbott to tie himself up in knots and suggest we get promises from him in writing. Abbott was also involved in another infamous car crash interview where he greeted Mark Riley’s questions about some ill-advised comments in Afghanistan with a vaguely menacing silence.
Persistence and aggression are the traits that yield these results, and these have become the criteria for assessing an interviewer’s credibility and skill. (The international benchmark may be Jeremy Paxman, whose demolition of then-Tory leader Michael Howard is internationally famous).Persistence and aggression are the traits that yield these results, and these have become the criteria for assessing an interviewer’s credibility and skill. (The international benchmark may be Jeremy Paxman, whose demolition of then-Tory leader Michael Howard is internationally famous).
Anyone who cares to take to Twitter after a big-ticket interview on a flagship current affairs show will find users arguing the toss about whether the interview was “too soft” or “tough”, a discussion which all too easily descends into accusations of favouritism and bias. Politics is now evaluated as a spectacle, especially, it seems, by those who would see themselves as the most informed, and most committed to following its nuances. Anyone who cares to take to Twitter after a big-ticket interview on a flagship current affairs show will find users arguing the toss about whether the interview was “too soft” or “tough”, a discussion which all too easily descends into accusations of favouritism and bias. Politics is now evaluated as a spectacle, especially, it seems, by those who would see themselves as the most informed and most committed to following its nuances.
There are any number of scholars and pragmatic political professionals who say that we should accept that this is what politics is now. Performance, persona, and plausibility are the only real proxies we have for judging politicians’ capacities in times of bewildering complexity, so politicians are right to work on those things, and interviewers are duty bound to test them out.There are any number of scholars and pragmatic political professionals who say that we should accept that this is what politics is now. Performance, persona, and plausibility are the only real proxies we have for judging politicians’ capacities in times of bewildering complexity, so politicians are right to work on those things, and interviewers are duty bound to test them out.
Related: A patriotic ABC: a parody | Rupert MyersRelated: A patriotic ABC: a parody | Rupert Myers
But if we pull back, we see survey after survey throughout the mature liberal democracies, attesting that people are more dissatisfied than ever with politics — even with democracy itself — and its relevance to their everyday lives.But if we pull back, we see survey after survey throughout the mature liberal democracies, attesting that people are more dissatisfied than ever with politics — even with democracy itself — and its relevance to their everyday lives.
Malcolm Turnbull’s plea for interviewers to be nicer is not only self-serving - it disingenuously blames individuals for broader structural changes in the relationship between politicians and the media. These changes won’t be reversed by Leigh Sales going easier on the politicians she invites on her program.Malcolm Turnbull’s plea for interviewers to be nicer is not only self-serving - it disingenuously blames individuals for broader structural changes in the relationship between politicians and the media. These changes won’t be reversed by Leigh Sales going easier on the politicians she invites on her program.
The more serious problem with political interviewing is that it’s become a self-contained game played between political and media insiders, a game which, as Jay Blumler and Michael Gurevitch put it two decades ago “is so mutually preoccupying that ordinary citizens’ needs can fall far from sight”.The more serious problem with political interviewing is that it’s become a self-contained game played between political and media insiders, a game which, as Jay Blumler and Michael Gurevitch put it two decades ago “is so mutually preoccupying that ordinary citizens’ needs can fall far from sight”.