Trevor Phillips - Tory mouthpiece or just thick?

And now we have it. An item on Jeremy Vine (TV on Ch5) showing a headline saying that AR says that 'newts can't be prioritised over housing', referencing the interview with Trevor Philips 🙄.

I really think that this sort of thing works against democracy and is very poor journalism. How can politicians relax and answer questions in an unguarded manner when both journalists and armchair commentators on SM are going to scour everything they say in the hope of being able to accuse them of lying or hit them with a 'gotcha'?

I also get bored with interviewers wasting half the interview time repeating the same question when the interviewee has said they can't answer it (because of an embargo or similar). It's pointless, and doesn't show the interviewer in a good light, whatever they think.

When Paxman popularised this style of interviewing it made a refreshing change from the more usual fawning over politicians that had been prevalent, but now it's just tedious. Paxman got credit for 'asking difficult questions', and there's nothing wrong with that - political questions should be designed to find out what viewers want to know - but that's not the same as just repeating the same thing knowing full well that it can't and won't be answered, and not leaving time for asking those that can.

I am perfectly able to think for myself, and feel the same when Tory ministers are treated in this way, incidentally. It's not about 'sides' for me.

The interviewer’s job is to get information, and your opinion of them usually depends on which side you are on.

Thank you for pulling at these threads Mollygo. The view above is put by many, and though it does seem rather clichéd it made me think. My mind went back to the old newspaper days.

In those you had a separation of journalist reporting and editorial opinion pieces. In some ways I can see parts of this still existing in a few magazines and reappearing on some podcasts and YouTube videos.

Perhaps Phillip's issues (and others, he is not alone) come from his job being ill defined? If he is doing the editorial piece then why is he interviewing? Perhaps it's time for the parties to call a halt to these set piece interviews. The way Margaret Thatcher handled the Faulklands war worked well for her.

An editorial piece use to go unsigned and was seen as the opinion of the newspaper or other publication. By becoming part editorial these interviews must reflect the views of the channel, often of the owner. Obviously, the BBC will remain impartial

What people need to realise is what politicians don't say. During an interview it is the inference that indicates the real thought. Good interviewees always reply but don't answer the question unless they are in court.
Mogg was once asked a supplementary about Brexit, simply was it good, bad or indifferent, and what were the metrics (for success). Mogg in the previous question indicated his political support for Brexit. He replied (but didn't answer) and said the tories were making good trade deals (but they were stumbling). Clearly his real thoughts were Brexit is not working and will not work and quietly admits it was politically wrong.
Trevor Philips basically tows the Sky party line, not genuine at all. His stance on Israel is appalling.

I’m not sure about that Mollygo, I think a good interviewer is recognised as such whichever side you’re on, surely, even if you don’t welcome their line of questioning. ? I feel it’s more to do with how their personal style sits with us individually, and as importantly, whether they display any personal bias. I don’t like bullies or sucker-uppers. A straight, probing, non aggressive interviewer who asks the difficult questions and isn’t fobbed off easily wins my approval. I don’t agree with the assessment by PoliticsNerd about Trevor Phillips yesterday, I think he was fair and straight.

Interesting PoliticsNerd that’s exactly what happens with journalists whichever government is in power.
Depending on your viewpoint, the interviewee is clever at not answering or giving a full a full answer or a typical MP who can’t give a straight answer to a straight question
The interviewer’s job is to get information, and your opinion of them usually depends on which side you are on.

Interesting Oreo, the worriedwell and Mollygo. I find him to be a bully. It seemed more akin to a police interview in the 1970s or 80s. More to the point, what extra did we learn? That a journalist can bully a politician simply to prove that what the politician has said is true? That more will be happening during the next week and we will be updated.

Journalism calls itself the Forth Estate. They have taken on the role, not been elected to it. This should mean the "reporting (of) the News without advocacy nor framing political issues". Phillip's interview was a long way from that.

As I suggested this is either because he has learned to treat others this way or because he cannot learn to behave in an appropriate and unbiased manner.

I just don't understand why any area would not do a local plan if central government said they must.

The last time everyone did one. They did this because it's in their interests to make sure development is where they want it (or conversely in the least worst place).

It was a silly question in my opinion.
Also, why would you not want local people to have a say?

Thanks Oreo. Glad it isn't just me. Sometimes on here it feels like a parallel universe.

theworriedwell

Mollygo

Oreo it’s quite obvious from the OP who is supported and who is decried. It will be equally obvious all the way through the thread, who supports anything said or done by the LP ands who doesn’t.
Each side will know they are right
It’s long been said of politicians of any party that they avoid giving answers, wherever possible, so I’m not sure why those who have in the past, said, agreed with, or implied that, are suddenly backtracking.

I'm a Labour voter, I'm a Labour party member. I think they both did their job, she didn't give away more than she wanted and he tried to find out what she didn't want to say.

I thought the same too.

I'm going to flat out faint if too many more shocks show up.

petra

Politician avoids answering a question.
Noooooooo 😱
Hardly news 🤷‍♀️

Similarly interviewer asks a question.

Anyone remember Sir Robin Day? He'd make TP look soft. Ludovic Kennedy was another excellent interviewer and always polite but didn't hesitate to ask the pertinent question.

That's my take on it, too.

Which would be the same whoever was interviewing and whichever party was being represented.

Mollygo

Oreo it’s quite obvious from the OP who is supported and who is decried. It will be equally obvious all the way through the thread, who supports anything said or done by the LP ands who doesn’t.
Each side will know they are right
It’s long been said of politicians of any party that they avoid giving answers, wherever possible, so I’m not sure why those who have in the past, said, agreed with, or implied that, are suddenly backtracking.

I'm a Labour voter, I'm a Labour party member. I think they both did their job, she didn't give away more than she wanted and he tried to find out what she didn't want to say.

MissAdventure

Angela did well, as always.

Exactly she didn't say more than she wanted to and he did his job and tried to get an answer. If he hadn't asked again people would be saying he didn't do his job and they'd be right.

Casdon

I really don’t like Beth Rigby, because she seems to think her mission is to be nasty and make the people she interviews squirm. Consequently nobody responds well to her, and she doesn’t get anything fresh from them (I mean politicians of any party).
To my mind Trevor Phillips is a much better interviewer. He’s persistent, but he’s not nasty. I think Angela Rayner is more skilled at being interviewed than some people give her credit for though. She doesn’t give anything away, and she parries pretty well - she is a quick learner I’d say, and much to her naysayers’ disappointment she didn’t drop any clangers.

Yes they did a bit of fencing. He wasn't rude and she wasn't going to tell him what he wanted to know.

PoliticsNerd

theworriedwell

I saw it. I like AR but she wasn't giving full answers and he doesn't settle for that however he's interviewing.

She gave the answer several times. I'm no Labour Party supporter, but I do find this interesting and the process, as described by AR was clearly understandable. He was simply bullying although she seems very able to stand her ground.

They say you get a lot more with honey than you do with vinegar but that seems to pass him by. He wanted her to say something she didn't want to say and she is perfectly entitled not to bend to bullying.

The Conservatives didn't have a plan for house building but it seems their supporters are very happy to use aggression to defend their time in office against a party that does have a plan. The problem seems to be that the Tories are afraid Labour WILL meet their housebuilding targets.

What information do others think he was trying to extract from her? My view was that he wasn't interested in the steps so far and what happens next, he just wanted to trip her up. That is not good journalism it simply atempting to generate click bait.

If this was about house building she said local authorities would have to produce a plan, TP asked what would happen if they didn't and she said they had to, he repeatedly asked what would happen and she just kept saying they had to. There must be some sanction if they don't but she wouldn't say what it was, maybe planning would be taken of the LA, maybe there would be a financial penalty, maybe the head of the authority would have to dance naked on the steps of the council building. Whatever it is she wasn't telling so he kept asking.

What information was he trying to get from her? He was trying to find out what would happen if a local authority of say 500 houses a year and they didn't produce a plan for 500 houses a year. I think it was pretty obvious what he was asking.

Politician avoids answering a question.
Noooooooo 😱
Hardly news 🤷‍♀️

I really don’t like Beth Rigby, because she seems to think her mission is to be nasty and make the people she interviews squirm. Consequently nobody responds well to her, and she doesn’t get anything fresh from them (I mean politicians of any party).
To my mind Trevor Phillips is a much better interviewer. He’s persistent, but he’s not nasty. I think Angela Rayner is more skilled at being interviewed than some people give her credit for though. She doesn’t give anything away, and she parries pretty well - she is a quick learner I’d say, and much to her naysayers’ disappointment she didn’t drop any clangers.

Trevor Phillips and Beth Rigby are good at their jobs, namely not letting any politicians get away with easy answers.
Quite why this is being labelled as ‘Labour bashing’ is mystifying as they both grill Conservatives in the same way.

I don’t watch Sky News any more. At least, not in the way I used to. And I’ve emailed them to tell them so. When Trevor Phillips isn’t Labour bashing in on tv he’s doing so in The Times. Beth Rigby ( who I used to like ) is as bad. Bit concerned about The Observer being sold, too. Thank goodness the Conservatives didn’t succeed in shutting down Ch4 News.

Thanks Wyllow3 - he didn't come over as very straightforward and was obviously pushing for her to say something he could take issue with.

We used to have a local plan. I contributed to it in meetings and in writing... I didn't like ours but had accepted it.
I think this is what will happen.

I did watch the the other interview with her on GB News that Primrose53 mentioned and though she didn't name companies she actually didn't say they supported the whole thing she referred to supporting "aspects" of it and, if I remember correctly she said "in principle".

I thought about it quite a lot afterwards and thought she was still probably still talking to them (out of the spotlight).

I don’t understand it Mollygo but guess you’re right.
I don’t ever think TP is aggressive when he interviews but he doesn’t allow politicians to deflect or distract.
I thought she answered fairly well, tho the insistence on a number and a massive number at that on house building may well come back to bite her on the rear.

I'd think he was aggressive and she isn't "thick" whatever party she came from.

I wouldn't take a teachers word that they considered her "thick".

Oreo it’s quite obvious from the OP who is supported and who is decried. It will be equally obvious all the way through the thread, who supports anything said or done by the LP ands who doesn’t.
Each side will know they are right
It’s long been said of politicians of any party that they avoid giving answers, wherever possible, so I’m not sure why those who have in the past, said, agreed with, or implied that, are suddenly backtracking.