Paxman and the Theatre of Politics
Mark Greene reflects on how aggressive, heckling tactics and a penchant for drama are corroding the quality of political debate.
If Paxman were an animal he would be a Rottweiler. All teeth and determination and almost no ability to discern between friend and foe, between a rat and the neighbour’s poodle. Whilst the BBC’s Grand Inquisitor may rail against what he regards as the dissimulation and evasiveness of our politicians, no one, in the last five years, has in my view done more to corrode the quality of political discourse than he.
Paxman has become a frothing caricature of himself in which the legendary skills that once used to be deployed to get at the issues are now principally deployed to get at the people he interviews. Why open his interview with the leader of the Scottish National Party by asking whether he would prefer Michael Howard or Tony Blair to be in No 10? Except to throw him off guard. Why ask George Galloway after his extraordinary victory in Bethnal Green: “Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?” As if anyone in their right mind believed that George Galloway’s motive for standing had anything to do with the gender or colour of the other candidates? Did either question illuminate any of the central political issues most in the public’s interest?
Furthermore, Paxman’s insistence on ‘yes/no’ answers is further cramping politicians’ ability to explore the complexity of issues. So does Tony Blair, or more recently Charles Clark, care about the widening gap between rich and poor? Yes or no? If they say ‘yes’, Paxman will ask them why that gap is widening – at least between the very rich and the poor. And if they say ‘no’, he will accuse them of not caring about the poor. But the key issue for the Labour Party is not whether some people are getting very, very rich but whether more people have the opportunity to flourish.
The BBC’s failure to curb Paxman combined with the Gilligan case, the planting of hecklers at a Michael Howard speech, and the transporting of a pro-war heckler to an anti-war religious service all suggest that our most important national mass medium of political information and debate is becoming more interested in creating drama than intelligently exploring the important issues of our time. Yes or no, Jeremy?
This article first appeared in Christianity & Renewal and is reproduced by kind permission.
Comments
There are currently no comments for this article.
