Political interviews must be more than punch-ups

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/political-interviews-newsnight-ian-katz

Version 0 of 1.

Dull, predictable, formulaic political interviews are a big problem for those of us who believe that politics is far more exciting than it is perceived to be. The pattern is so familiar that most of us have stopped listening before the first question is answered, or perhaps asked. For three or four minutes, rarely longer, the interviewer tries to get politicians to answer a question. The politician cannot reply with candour without splitting their party or destroying their career. Some viewers and commentators hail the brave interviewer for seeking the “truth”. They loathe the evasiveness of the interviewee. But a lot of viewers are bored with the familiar and futile dynamic.

We should awake fleetingly from our stupor and offer a cautious round of applause to the editor of Newsnight, Ian Katz, who has proclaimed the death of the political interview as currently formulated. In an article for the Financial Times, Katz explains that he viewed again recently an interview with Labour’s Rachel Reeves after which he caused outrage by tweeting inadvertently that she had been “snoring boring”. Katz is careful not to be offensive to any interviewee or interviewer, but he states that on second viewing he found the interview as boring as he did when it was first broadcast. He goes on to draw wider conclusions about the pointless game of cat and mouse that produces robotic interviewees.

Katz does not make this point, but the interviewing style of the recently departed Jeremy Paxman and his many inauthentic imitators is part of the problem. During his one-man show at this year’s Edinburgh festival, Paxman showed his famous interview with the former Treasury minister Chloe Smith. Paxman had repeatedly asked Smith when she found out about a policy U-turn she had been put up to defend. She did not answer. I sensed that Paxman’s generally doting Edinburgh audience was slightly uneasy watching again a powerless, inexperienced junior minister being savaged to career death over a meaningless triviality. Her precise involvement in the decision was no big deal.

The shame is, politics is far more interesting than such interviews suggest. The reason why politics is always compelling is that, in the end, it is about human beings facing nightmarish dilemmas, as in the best thrillers. I recall Tony Blair telling me early in his first term that he faced decisions every day that came down to “Do I cut my throat or slit my wrist?” Each dilemma came with no-win solutions. That was during his honeymoon phase, when he was 20 points ahead in the polls. Currently Ed Miliband must decide whether to propose a tax rise before the election to pay for an increase in spending on the NHS and elderly care. Does he dare state the obvious – that the increased demand will have to be paid for – or would it be seen as a “tax bombshell” that loses him the election?

Imagine the agonies for David Cameron when he decided to offer an in/out referendum on Europe. Would the pledge unite his party or make his prime ministerial life a form of unbearable hell if he had to carry out the commitment? There are a thousand other examples.

Too often the starting point of political interviews is very different from a fascination with the dilemmas. There is no curiosity. Instead there is an assumption that the interviewee is arrogantly powerful and must be brought down to size, tripped up, made to answer a question that will highlight the flaws of his or her arrogant self-confidence. Such interviews do not work because quite often the interviewee is not mighty, but trapped on a small part of the political stage with little room to move.

When I presented a political interview programme on Sunday mornings, we wasted time planning questions that would “catch out” the interviewee in order to get headlines. We got lots of headlines, but rarely by catching them out. We gave the interviewees room to breathe and explored some of the dilemmas they faced. Quite often they lapsed into candour and became illuminating. I guess this style is regarded as “soft”, but it is absurd to analyse interviews through such a narrow framework as “tough” or “soft”. They are not boxing matches.

Katz notes the importance of space to breathe, and hopes that a greater willingness to explore will elicit more interesting responses. This matters, because politics is mediated partly through the political interview. In 1981, at a very youthful age, I accidentally watched an interview between Brian Walden and Tony Benn. I have been hooked on politics ever since. The exchange was a great psychological drama between a politician at the height of his mesmerising powers and an interviewer who passionately disagreed with the interviewee but was fascinated by him. There are now fewer interesting politicians. But let us never forget that the dilemmas are thrilling, and the way they are awkwardly, nervously resolved affects us all.

Steve Richards presents Rock N Roll Politics at Kings Place Festival next Saturday