In the green corner, a 3 min 41 sec clip from an LBC radio interview with the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett by Nick Ferrari dated 24 February 2015:
(I posted about this interview back when it happened.)
Most cringeworthy moments: her ghastly fake coughs at 2:07, 3:10, and 3:25 whenever Nick Ferrari pressed a point particularly hard. She really did have a cough, but even a real cough sounds wrong when told to perform before it is ready. Ferrari’s expression of sympathy after the 3:25 coughing fit was not meant to deceive her or the audience.
In the red corner, a four minute clip from a BBC Northern Ireland radio interview with Jeremy Corbyn by Stephen Nolan dated 8 August 2015, while Mr Corbyn was the front-runner in his ultimately successful bid to become leader of the Labour Party:
The most cringeworthy section again involves a pretence. Listening from 3 minutes until the end, Mr Corbyn’s initial claim not to have heard was credible; there was interference from another station to contend with. But as the interviewer doggedly repeated the question in an admirably clear voice, my belief in Mr Corbyn’s deafness trickled away.
Jeremy Corbyn: “Can we take the thing forwards rather than backwards?”
Stephen Nolan: “Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?”
[Background noise – interference from another station.]
JC: “Sorry, couldn’t hear that.”
SN: “Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?”
[Pause]
SN: “Jeremy?”
JC: “Hello? I think we’re going to have to do this later…”
SN: “OK, let me just – let me just ask this last question while it’s quiet there. Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?”
[Sound of indrawn breath.]
[Click.]
Who wins this round?
Yes Mr Corbyn is evil – evil.
He is not a harmless English eccentric – Mr Corbyn is evil.
How long before people wake up to this basic fact.
Paul, they will probably like him better for it.
I believe the Tories win this round.
There is an axiom in business that now seems transferable to political purpose:
So what is the “need” that the ilk from which these current Labour Party personages are drawn seek to fill?
Is it the actual case that there is no such “need,” but that such personages have little (if any) capacities to fill any needs; so, it is necessary for their existence to have any meaning to attempt to conjure up perceptions of need that does not exist?
I’m amazed that the “change” meme is being pulled out of the collective asses of Corbyn fans, when it is obvious he is just another career politician for 30+ years who has never had a real job and struggles to give straight answers to straight questions. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
This is one to set on the other side of the ledger from the usual rule – interviewee sitting in the studio always has the advantage over interviewee on the end of a link. But sitting on the end of a link does, as here, give you the chance to pretend you didn’t hear the question.
So the rule probably has to be adjusted as follows :
Interviewees wanting to say stuff and get their point across => go to the studio
Interviewees forced to face questions they don’t want to answer => don’t go to the studio
The ultimate (?) how-to.
I’d suggest the sort of person who would choose to vote for either (other than the tribal voters) would happily ignore their evasions, assuming the questions to be attacks on the blemishless characters of good people with the right ideas. To support either of these people you need to be able to ignore evidence quite happily…