The worst interview ever?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 49549
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 49549

Guest
Surely it s a prerequisite for an interviewer to be able to hold a conversation? It seems like she comes armed with a single line of attack, when the interviewee doesn't play ball she comes across as a 5 year old.

 
I think she has a point. That MP is useless, what's the point nominating "a cool guy" if you don't want him to win anyway. Dawn uses a lot of words without actually saying anything. Typical warped labour logic. They are just not to be trusted with anything.
 
dejongj said:
I think she has a point. That MP is useless, what's the point nominating "a cool guy" if you don't want him to win anyway. Dawn uses a lot of words without actually saying anything. Typical warped labour logic. They are just not to be trusted with anything.
Click to expand...
Has @Rapscallion switched the video since you viewed and I did? The only useless one in that video was the interviewer. I thought she made it perfectly clear why she put Corbyn on the ballot paper I cant believe she repeatedly asked the question when it had been clearly answered already. There are few tv journalists who can pull off the Paxman attitude and she is certainly not one of them. Typical Murdoch lacky neither he or them can be trusted with anything, certainly not the news ;)
 
I don't think she has answered it at all, I can totally see where the interviewer was coming from. Dawn merely wasted her nomination on a frivolity trying to give others a choice, a choice that she doesn't even support. And that is exactly the problem labour has got. A few of them are approaching this as to how they can get voters and change their views to match that. Surely the whole point of labour is that they have certain principles and outlook and they should stand by that. I can respect that, but at the moment people like her are trying and many others are trying to be something they are not.

They are so confused. My suggestion is to go back to the roots and if people don't want that then take the hint.
 
yep terrible interviewer, i thought the repeated question at first was ok (as there was an attempt to answer a completely different question at first) but once that question had been answered there seemed to be a very combative tone throughout the rest of the interview
 
jakeblu said:
Has @Rapscallion switched the video since you viewed and I did? The only useless one in that video was the interviewer. I thought she made it perfectly clear why she put Corbyn on the ballot paper I cant believe she repeatedly asked the question when it had been clearly answered already. There are few tv journalists who can pull off the Paxman attitude and she is certainly not one of them. Typical Murdoch lacky neither he or them can be trusted with anything, certainly not the news ;)
Click to expand...

No, I didn't switch the video!

dejongj (as many others on the forum) is practicing the art of treating politics like football - "any team other than my own I shall rubbish and treat with thoughtless disdain, as they are Red and I am Blue. No matter what they say - I shall disagree with, no matter how they handle themselves - I shall criticise them, no matter how they are treated - I will show no empathy, no matter what their policy - it is wrong".

Even the some Tory party MP's think Kay Burley needs a hearing aid after the trainwreck of that interview.
 
Rapscallion said:
No, I didn't switch the video!

dejongj (as many others on the forum) is practicing the art of treating politics like football - "any team other than my own I shall rubbish and treat with thoughtless disdain, as they are Red and I am Blue. No matter what they say - I shall disagree with, no matter how they handle themselves - I shall criticise them, no matter how they are treated - I will show no empathy, no matter what their policy - it is wrong".

Even the some Tory party MP's think Kay Burley needs a hearing aid after the trainwreck of that interview.
Click to expand...
No I do not treat it like football or a fanboy. If that is what you read into it then I seriously question your comprehension skills. I clearly highlighted how I would respect labour, i.e. not trying to be Tories, and likewise for Dawn. Nominate a candidate that you don't even support yourself is just silly game playing. Which is exactly what the interviewer was on about. Is she the best, no she isn't in my opinion Could she have handled it better,yes most definitely.But as I said in my first post she had a point...

Yet somehow you choose to interpret my response as some kind of fanboy/football supporter behaviour, very wrong and clearly demonstrated your lack of comprehension of the situation.
 
dejongj said:
No I do not treat it like football or a fanboy. If that is what you read into it then I seriously question your comprehension skills. I clearly highlighted how I would respect labour, i.e. not trying to be Tories, and likewise for Dawn. Nominate a candidate that you don't even support yourself is just silly game playing. Which is exactly what the interviewer was on about. Is she the best, no she isn't in my opinion Could she have handled it better,yes most definitely.But as I said in my first post she had a point...

Yet somehow you choose to interpret my response as some kind of fanboy/football supporter behaviour, very wrong and clearly demonstrated your lack of comprehension of the situation.
Click to expand...

I have re-read, and yes that is how your post reads to me. I have yet to hear anybody in the press, on either side of the political spectrum, that thinks there was anything worthy in her interview - but no doubt, there will be some contrarians voicing their opinion in the coming days that will support her.

However, you are entitled to disagree (even if you really know are in the wrong! ;))
 
Kay Burley has form. I'm surprised she kept her job after her interview of the Alton Towers CEO. She terrible
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
I have re-read, and yes that is how your post reads to me. I have yet to hear anybody in the press, on either side of the political spectrum, that thinks there was anything worthy in her interview - but no doubt, there will be some contrarians voicing their opinion in the coming days that will support her.

However, you are entitled to disagree (even if you really know are in the wrong! ;))
Click to expand...
Arrogance in trying to pretend you know what I know really doesn't suit you, that like labour trying to be more Tory than the Tories to get votes.
 
boyfalldown said:
you could always view it as an effort to bring some alternative viewpoints and a more balanced debated?
Click to expand...
Well that was what Dawn was trying to suggest, and that is why I think the labour leadership contest is so farcical. I respect anyone who stands by their own viewpoint, has some principles. However bringing in others when you don't even support them reeks to me of alternate motives. I mean she couldn't be clear in not supporting him but supporting him for something else. I just think it is a waste of everyone's time.

And yes the interviewer could have handled it better, but I do think it was good of her to hone that point home. Too many times politicians say a lot of words that is actually a lot of nonsense and doesn't answer the question.
 
dejongj said:
Arrogance in trying to pretend you know what I know really doesn't suit you, that like labour trying to be more Tory than the Tories to get votes.
Click to expand...

No arrogance, or trying to pretend I know what you know - I am just responding to the content of your posts.
 
Rapscallion said:
No arrogance, or trying to pretend I know what you know - I am just responding to the content of your posts.
Click to expand...
Lol I know. You know what you know and I know what I know. As long as you don't really believe that you know what I know through reading my posts as I have already highlighted that your comprehension is defective. Naturally that doesn't change what you know that you know, just be a big boy and acknowledge that you merely think you know what I know. You know what I mean? ;) :kiss: :beer:
 
dejongj said:
Too many times politicians say a lot of words that is actually a lot of nonsense and doesn't answer the question.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you :D

dejongj said:
Nominate a candidate that you don't even support yourself is just silly game playing.
Click to expand...
That's what's known a s politics, and re-enforces why I don't trust any of them what ever "colours" they support
 
dejongj said:
Well that was what Dawn was trying to suggest, and that is why I think the labour leadership contest is so farcical. I respect anyone who stands by their own viewpoint, has some principles. However bringing in others when you don't even support them reeks to me of alternate motives. I mean she couldn't be clear in not supporting him but supporting him for something else. I just think it is a waste of everyone's time.

And yes the interviewer could have handled it better, but I do think it was good of her to hone that point home. Too many times politicians say a lot of words that is actually a lot of nonsense and doesn't answer the question.
Click to expand...


I have to admit I love hearing opposing views. I even learned something once :)
 
Oh and please quit with the point scoring guys, you sound like a load of Erm politicians ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
boyfalldown said:
I have to admit I love hearing opposing views. I even learned something once :)
Click to expand...
Me too, I like debates which cover the subject and where the individual isn't attacked.

I just think that bringing a viewpoint like what Dawn has done, which she doesn't actually support herself, doesn't add anything constructive to a debate. It merely confuses matters. On a forum we call it trolling ...

Maybe I'm taking it too serious, I just think that Labour needs to pull together and stand what they stand for opposed to what they think people want them to stand for. What dawn openly admit she has done is to me exactly what their issue is at the moment.

In a democracy a good opposition is essential in my opinion. There isn't any at the moment and I think it is being demonstrated in the behaviour of the Conservatives who are truly taking advantage of that. I don't think that is good for anyone.
 
It's funny, but when Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question 13 times he was praised as a hero. When Kay Burley repeats a question that the politician doesn't answer she gets slated.
Sexual bias? Anti Tory, pro Labour bias? Who knows?
Certainly double standards.
 
mickledore said:
It's funny, but when Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question 13 times he was praised as a hero. When Kay Burley repeats a question that the politician doesn't answer she gets slated.
Sexual bias? Anti Tory, pro Labour bias? Who knows?
Certainly double standards.
Click to expand...

The difference being that Michael Howard didn't answer the question at all, Dawn Butler did - 3 times!
 
What question was it that she didn't answer? The one Kay Burley repeated was "do you want Jeremy Corbyn to win" and Dawn Butler replied that she wanted Andy Burnham to win.

dejongj said:
Dawn merely wasted her nomination
Click to expand...

How has she wasted her nomination? If the person she wanted to win (Burnham) was already nominated, it would be pointless nominating him again so she nominated Corbyn to widen the debate. Makes sense to me.
 
fabs said:
How has she wasted her nomination? If the person she wanted to win (Burnham) was already nominated, it would be pointless nominating him again so she nominated Corbyn to widen the debate. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

I think the implication is that the nomination of a candidate that you don't want to win is either gamesmanship or stupid.

However, his nominators see the nomination of Corbyn as being 'a good thing for the party' in widening the choice of candidates available to the voting body. I don't think it is a stupid action, so whether it is gamesmanship or a 'good thing' remains to be seen, but I cannot see who benefits if it is gamesmanship (apart from Corbyn obviously).
 
Politics aside.

Very poor interview.
I think the problem for Kay Burley was, she obviously had a written list of prompts, but she wasn't expecting Dawn Butler to actually answer her questions straight away & it threw her. She seemed to be struggling from then on.
 
OldCarlos said:
Politics aside.

Very poor interview.
I think the problem for Kay Burley was, she obviously had a written list of prompts, but she wasn't expecting Dawn Butler to actually answer her questions straight away & it threw her. She seemed to be struggling from then on.
Click to expand...


Kay burley would never struggle in an interview
 
fabs said:
What question was it that she didn't answer? The one Kay Burley repeated was "do you want Jeremy Corbyn to win" and Dawn Butler replied that she wanted Andy Burnham to win.



How has she wasted her nomination? If the person she wanted to win (Burnham) was already nominated, it would be pointless nominating him again so she nominated Corbyn to widen the debate. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell fire, a sensible post on a politics thread in OOF, who'd have thunk it
 
I'm not sure what kind of interview is worse, the Burley train wreck, or the Suzannah Reid, fawning giggling damp-knickered type :lol:
 
Rapscallion said:
I think the implication is that the nomination of a candidate that you don't want to win is either gamesmanship or stupid.
Click to expand...
I think the Tory supporters are struggling with this because the concept of a principled decision or doing something that doesn't serve your own self-interest is alien to them.

The selection process means grass-roots supporters only get to choose the candidates the MPs nominate. In this instance, it is clear that Corbyn doesn't have much support from his fellow MPs, but IS popular with the grassroots supporters.

Should the Labour Party membership have been denied the candidate of their choice (even if it is misguided) because a small number of MPs effectively vetoed it? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top