More tea, prime minister? Photograph: PA
An interesting - at least interesting to journalists - debate sprang up in today's politics conference. The topic: Have Paxman, Humphrys et al. gone too far with the attack-dog mode of political interviewing?
The gathered Observer hacks were divided broadly into two camps: the 'it's good to see politicians getting turned over when they deserve it, that's the whole point' school and the 'you have to let them at least get a word in otherwise what exactly is the point?' school.
The evidence:
Alan Milburn goes the full 12 rounds on the Today programme, a fair fight.
Jack Straw on the ropes, also on the Today programme, a gruesome spectacle.
Paxman interviews the party leaders, a mixed bag. Kennedy gets mauled; Blair and Howard perform well enough that these appearances will simply confirm whatever opinion you had already.
What does asking the same question 78 times actually achieve? Does aggressive interrogation ever make us feel sympathy for the interviewee? There's also the possibility that things have turned a bit personal between the Today programme and the government since the Hutton report. Or is that why we listen? If we wanted a cosy love-in we'd listen to Capital Gold in the morning.
