Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what a knobhead.
it's not great.
everyone seems to think that by turning the screws when he interviews politicians, he's somehow 'giving them what they deserve'. but it's never a real victory, is it? anyone can be sarcastic and smug but the very same politicians that he interviews simply leave thinking about what a twat he is and go about their usual business. ngggghh.
I dislike it when people describe other people as smug just because they're better than them.
makes me want to marry him less. he is, in general, utterly wonderful.
the only time i've found him interesting or amusing is when they swapped business news for the weather and he was quite heroically sarcastic about it.
Other than that...smug cock.
but I really like Paxo anyway
but i only just realised that you were female
When I saw him, he was really nice to all his assistants and to everyone lese he spoke to. And he's clever. and witty.
I *LOVE* him
he's often just trying to illustrate their lack of clarity or reveal the truth behind the spin, or their lack of integrity in owning up to things.
However, sometimes he goes too far, and ends up roasting some politician who actually seems like they are just trying to do their job as best they can.
Sometimes, when he asks one question over and over again, I think although it's pretty funny it gives a generally poor impression of politics and political debate, which is potentially damaging to peoples' interest in the subject.
i would say so does the way most politicians will completely circumvent the majority of questions they are asked.
although i don't advocate every reporter doing it, i think it's nice that there's someone who's known for not letting them pull that.
But like I said, it can turn into farce, especially when he just goes for it with someone who isn't particularly trying to hide anything.
if you want a straight answer from a politician, you shouldn't ask a loaded question. that's the problem with political interviewing.
i did love it when he interviewd Ann Coulter and said "i've read the first chapter of your book, does it get any better?" ... absolute genius
I'm not sure he comes across as smug, just 'content'.
Anyway, I've always quite liked him. I think the politicians have the interviewers they deserve. If they clean up their act then gradually they'll get interviews that are less confrontational and cynical.
He's a cuddly bear. I refute all allegations that he is not. He's my favourite.
isn't mastermind done by john humphries?
my problem with him is that he's actually quite nakedly stupid.
I get the distinct impression that Paxman is clever and wity....yes sometimes he is playing to the cameras, although his agressive style is indeed invited by political spin and politicians responses.
I dont know if you remember Robin Day (not considered a politicians freind, but not as aggressive/sarcastic as Paxman) John Nott (minister of defence) once walked out of a debate (because he was asked a question that was not previously agreed)
If only that had Paxman, what would he have said to Nott? "Oh come back and sit down stop behaving like a peevish child" or (in my dreams) "Ahh didums, baby having a tantrum?"
he just comes across as a bully and knows people will be on his side because it's better than supporting crooked politicians. Whereas someone like Day seemed genuinely hard-hitting and intent on getting straight answers rather than just playing up to a charicature. And yes i know i probably spelt charicature wrong.
A common error:
To refute is to "to prove to be false or erroneous". What you are doing is contradicting.
I like Paxman because next to him I barely look patronising at all.