Andrew Marr
Am I the only one who thinks he's not particularly bright. Saw him interviewing Alex Salmond at the weekend. He asked Salmond how he could realistically expect independence at the same time as retaining the Queen as head of state, open borders and shared military facilities. Salmond immediately pointed out that there were independent countries that already had such arrangements with Britain - something the average man or woman in the street would have been able to tell the interviewer. Does Andrew Marr exist in a parallel universe?
0
Comments
Why did you put that in quotes?
Do you agree or not agree with this quote?
No, I don't think the BBC is left-wing biased. I think the typical BBC employee is likely to hold left-wing views, but I think they're generally too professional to allow this to present their reporting. I find some interviewers and journalists do lean a bit too much to the left (mainly Marr) but this is counteracted by Paxman and Andrew Neil, who I don't think are right wing but are more anti-government.
I put it in quotes because many do believe this and repeat it often.
Andrew Marr and Sky's Adam Boulton appear to realise this and generally do a pretty good job at keeping things relaxed and informative. Paxman, Esler and Wark on the other hand see these interviews like a game of chess and tend to throw the board up in the air when they don't come out on top (which is the case more often than not).
That's not to say there aren't left-wingers out there interviewing people. But Marr is more like a Paxman character. He'll attack anyone and disagree for the sake of disagreement. Right or left wing.
He's more of a centrist. I recall him debating with Chomsky and opposing everything Chomsky says. Now no left-winger opposes Chomsky. So it's clear Marr is simply a centrist with a self-inflated sense of self-worth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG24vg8js4o
But if you watch his last interview with Cameron, he talks over him to the point where Cameron only got a few words out before being interrupted. For an example, take a look at the this thread - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1144161
Contrast this with the Brown interview, where he interrupted nowhere near as much, or the Mandelson one from a month or two ago, where he was dire.
It's not just the questions he asks, but the way he asks them.
I just thought his line of approach, as mentioned in my original post, was pretty stupid for a political journalist. Australia and other commonwealth countries are indepenedent yet still retain the queen as head of state, we have open borders with the rest of the EU and share military facilities with other NATO countries. And it's hard to blame the researcher. Surely he would have read the research notes before the interview and thought to himself, 'hang on, this is a pretty stupid thing to say.'
The argument about political bias I leave to others. I was just struck by the man's stupidity.
Of course. But he's tried to ambush many leftists.
I think the mistake being made is that people are assuming Cameron is right-wing and Brown is left-wing. Which simply isn't true. That's a media illusion.
Labour and the Tories have always said one thing while out of power and failed in doing it while in power. And that's a historical fact.
What I'm saying is that Cameron attacking Labour and saying one thing while out of power doesn't actually mean anything, at all. Because when in power he'll be just an inept as Labour.
Internally both Labour and the Tories are centrist. Externally they're both right wing, in regards to foreign policy. So going easy on one and not the other makes no sense, as they are the same. Maybe Marr has been tricked into believing there's a difference and bats for Labour?
But Marr is simply an idiot.
Andrew Marr is not in the same league as Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman, but he's still better than anybody ITV has to offer in terms of political insight.
I'm amazed that some people think TV interviewers are making personal points. TV interviews are not like debates on DS politics.
I'm not criticising his personal opinions; I am criticising his rank stupidity.
I agree with all of this...
... but here I think you're letting your dislike for Cameron or respect for Brown cloud your judgement. Brown may be a 'heavyweight' prime minister but he definitley doesn't show this through his interviews or public speaking. He uses soundbites and meaningless phrases just as much as all the others.
I'd describe Labour as centrist and the Tories as centre-right, but political labels aren't particularly useful. My point is that most interviewers seem anti-government and therefore harder on the government at the moment. If/when the Tories get in, I expect they'll be equally hard on them. Marr, on the other hand, seems to me to be harder on the Tories than on Labour, so I'd be interested to see what he will be like if we have a Tory victory next year.
Any interviewer regardless of their personal choices will try to get headline news in their interviews.
That is their main aim. Look at what Paxman did to his personal friend Mandelson?
A headline means more to an interviewer than who they personally like or dislike imo.
He studied English at Cambridge so he's hardly a dumbo.
It does make you wonder. Has he not heard of Australia.
He may know the works of Chaucer back to front, but he clearly doesn't know too much about politics - which is a bit of a handicap for a political journalist.
Didn't Boris Johnson study at Oxford?
"BENDY BUSSES!"
*slips and falls into a river*
I have seen many SNP interviews and none of the interviewers have gone into unionist mode.
I'm not a fan of Neil really, and while i do love Paxman, that famous interview he did with Galloway was downright unprofessional. Marr never grills as much as i'd like, but you couldn't argue he wasn't fiercely intelligent, i just don't think he's that kind of journalist.