These strikes are wrong...

[Waynflete]

I expect you're right, but I don't really understand why. If those interviews have been going on for years, I don't see why the broadcasters didn't just show the politicians up for the fools they are.

I guess because previously they'd use a short clip of the interview on the Six O'clock News and the rest would go in the bin. They didn't have anywhere to broadcast the whole interview (much of which would be boring anyway).

Now though, they put the soundbite in the Six O'clock report and also put the whole thing on the website, where people who are really interested can watch it if they want to.

I think it's also the case, though, that giving short soundbite answers suits journalists as well as politicians. If a politician gave a long, rambling answer to every question that wouldn't be very useful if what you want is a ten second clip to put in your report, so journalists will sometimes encourage them to simplify and shorten their messages.

The Miliband interview clearly takes this to extremes!

 

[Seagull on the wing]

C'mon,It was'nt Eddies fault...The guy holding the vision autocue forgot to switch to a new page so Eddie had to keep repeating the same page....yer! well. What he was basically saying was this Government is acting in a reckless manner....what he forgot to add was..."Trying to clear up the mess my government left behind". They'll be wanting Tony Blair as Middle East peace envoy next or Gordon Brown to run the IMF...er....

 

[alan partridge]

haha, weird indeed

has he got a cold?

 

[Bry Nylon]

Ed Miliband is already walking a tightrope. He won't be forgiven many more piss-poor performances like that by either the PLP or the Unions. That was shockingly bad on every level and confirms that EB simply doesn't have the skills to be a party leader.

 

[Bozza]

[yt]Udh6w5r0bOA[/yt]

 

[NMH]

Put aside the rhetoric, and put aside the rhetoric.

Put aside the rhetoric, innit.

 

[Waynflete]

Just seen this on the Guardian website...
Ed Miliband TV interviewer reveals shame over 'absurd' soundbites | Politics | guardian.co.uk

It definitely looks like the journalist was so p!ssed off with Miliband that he decided to stitch him up.

Definitely also, though, that the interview was for the news pool, going to lots of different broadcasters, so Miliband just clearly wanted to make certain his chosen message went out and nothing else...

'Green vented his anger at the Labour leader and his "handlers", putting on a "convincing charade" of pretending to care about his line of questioning when they had a pre-planned PR line that they refused to go beyond.

"If news reporters and cameras are only there to be used by politicians as recording devices for their scripted soundbites, at best that is a professional discourtesy," he said. "At worst, if we are not allowed to explore and examine a politician's views, then politicians cease to be accountable in the most obvious way."'

 

[Triggaaar]

I think it's also the case, though, that giving short soundbite answers suits journalists as well as politicians. If a politician gave a long, rambling answer to every question that wouldn't be very useful if what you want is a ten second clip to put in your report, so journalists will sometimes encourage them to simplify and shorten their messages.

If it worked for journos, why not just ask one question, get the prepared answer, and finish - why waste their time with another 4 questions (that needed to be prepared)?

I guess because previously they'd use a short clip of the interview on the Six O'clock News and the rest would go in the bin.

I realise that's presumably what has been happening, but it's not making sense to me. Although the 6 o'clock news has limited time, there would be a lot more interest in their news if it showed the full clip, showing what a muppet the politician is. To me, that would be the news, not the prepared answer they gave. (If in charge of news production) I'd have introduced the clip as a discussion point on whether the leader could think for themsleves, or were they only capable of repeating a pre-pared message.

The Miliband interview clearly takes this to extremes!

Well George Osborne's looks just as bad.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

That is the most freaky response i have ever seen in an interview. I was hoping i would "grow" to like Milliband. What a mess labour are in if that is the best they can do against a weak Conservative/ Liberal Democratic alliance. Oh for the Blair years!

 

[Triggaaar]

Just seen this on the Guardian website...
Ed Miliband TV interviewer reveals shame over 'absurd' soundbites | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Good stuff.

It definitely looks like the journalist was so p!ssed off with Miliband that he decided to stitch him up.
...
"If news reporters and cameras are only there to be used by politicians as recording devices for their scripted soundbites, at best that is a professional discourtesy," he said. "At worst, if we are not allowed to explore and examine a politician's views, then politicians cease to be accountable in the most obvious way."'

That's the point, I can't imagine how any self respecting Journo could look themselves in the mirror if they accepted that nonsense. It's their job to get the news, and the news here is not the prepared speech, but the fact the politicians are not being accountable. We need to know what our leaders think, what their opinion is, what they're going to do to improve our country, and we can't find that out if they refuse to answer questions.

It seems like a big deal to me - we need to ridicule those that can't go off script in order to encourage all of them to speak a little more from the heart. Then we'll be able to judge our politicians on their substance.

 

[Waynflete]

If it worked for journos, why not just ask one question, get the prepared answer, and finish - why waste their time with another 4 questions (that needed to be prepared)?

I realise that's presumably what has been happening, but it's not making sense to me. Although the 6 o'clock news has limited time, there would be a lot more interest in their news if it showed the full clip, showing what a muppet the politician is. To me, that would be the news, not the prepared answer they gave. (If in charge of news production) I'd have introduced the clip as a discussion point on whether the leader could think for themsleves, or were they only capable of repeating a pre-pared message.

Well George Osborne's looks just as bad.

I hear what you're saying, but realistically the Six O'clock News (and One O'clock and Ten O'clock) are half-hour news bulletin programmes intended to give an overview of the day's main news stories.

In this case, the story was the strikes, and they would need a short soundbite from the Labour leader. But it would be a major decision to change the entire programme to become a discussion about the interview generally. This isn't something that the main news bulletins would do (Newsnight might, or maybe the 24-hour news channels).

It would also open up the broadcasters to accusations of political bias or potentially of self absorption, because they would be focusing on the deficiencies of a politician with respect to their interview, not on the main issue of the day (the strikes).

There is also something of an alliance between journalists and politicians. Politicians need to get themselves heard and journalists need interviews from politicians.

Within the fact that they need each other, politicians are always trying to control how journalists tell stories, and journalists are always trying to get politicians to say things that are more interesting for their stories. That's how the game works.

It seems that what happened here is that Miliband went too far in how he played the game with the journalist, and got his comeuppance. I agree Osborne's was just as bad, though maybe slightly more polished.

 

[Scampi]

I'm disgusted with the labour party. At a time when very drastic decisions are being made by the government, the opposition have elected possibly the worst leader of a major party I can remember (Ian Duncan Smith is the other candidate).

 

[Triggaaar]

I hear what you're saying, but realistically the Six O'clock News (and One O'clock and Ten O'clock) are half-hour news bulletin programmes intended to give an overview of the day's main news stories.

I could be wrong, but looking at the reaction in this thread, this is a news story. Yes, maybe they should have put it on Newsnight et al to discuss.

It would also open up the broadcasters to accusations of political bias or potentially of self absorption, because they would be focusing on the deficiencies of a politician with respect to their interview, not on the main issue of the day (the strikes).

It's not political bias if they treat all parties the same, and focussing on the deficiencies of a politician is pretty relevant when that person could be the next leader of your country. If the news channels showed these interviews in full each time they were as daft as this example, the politicians would have to change their game, and we'd get better answers to the questions.

There is also something of an alliance between journalists and politicians. Politicians need to get themselves heard and journalists need interviews from politicians.

Of course, but that doesn't mean the journalists need to ask easy questions or do what they're told. The BBC will guide their journalists on how to work, so a politician is hardly going to refuse to do interviews with the entire BBC, just because they want the questions to be easier.

Within the fact that they need each other, politicians are always trying to control how journalists tell stories, and journalists are always trying to get politicians to say things that are more interesting for their stories. That's how the game works.

Of course, and the news channels should let the politicians know, 'if you repeat one answer, regardless of the question, we will air the lot and you'll look like a fool'. The news channels should ask fair, relevant questions to have the best chance of a less scripted answer.

 

[Don Quixote]

He will be gone soon, don't worry guys, nothing to see here.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I'm disgusted with the labour party. At a time when very drastic decisions are being made by the government, the opposition have elected possibly the worst leader of a major party I can remember (Ian Duncan Smith is the other candidate).

Plans are already being prepared to replace him in time for the May 2012 local elections at the latest. If he can be persuaded to cite "personal reasons" then he may be gone as soon as 2011 Conference, although that time-line is looking a bit tight now, as by all accounts EB is reluctant to step down even though he knows the game is up.

 

[Silent Bob]

the tories should be 20 points behind in the polls not level or 2 or 3 behind.......Labour should of put in David and not Ed.....If Ed is still Labour leader in 2015 then it will be a bloodbath.

Ed Miliband is rubbish and will obviously never be PM, but Labour had one of their worst results in a long time at the elction a year ago, they were never going to just bounce straight back.
It would be a big mistake if they just assumed that since Ed hasn't work David Miliband must be the saviour.

I wonder if he's the first political leader in the world to have his career killed (probably) by going viral?