Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman, United Nations discussed on The Media Show
How in the world would you get agreement among the United Nations as to how that force should use its power? You wouldn't. You've only got to give a moment's thought to it, to know that you wouldn't. So you would veto it. It wouldn't be no good. There would be no point you'd never get a grim down rules of engagement. Now, it's much harder. They feel him battled. They think we're the enemy. It's got to a very soft and sad space. Are you the enemy? Of course not. I want truth. I want to find out what's going on. I want to know more about on behalf of the viewer in the listener. What is happening? What is your real purpose? What is the purpose of this law, or what is the purpose of what you're doing? But it can be very difficult to get. Of course, you can get a background briefing, but there are no pictures. And nothing to prove you ever spoke to anyone, because it's off camera. Your fellow big name interviewers tend to have a particular approach. You know, Jeremy paxman used to go on the attack Andrew Neil would adopt a sort of tone of incredulity if you like. How would you describe your interview style? Well, I'm much thicker than there. They're accomplished people with university degrees. I'm not. And therefore I have to be a much more animal, and I try to ask the question a that the viewer might really want answered. And then, you know, I mean, I try to follow up with an intelligent question, but I mean, the idea that I know any more than the average citizen, but perhaps that's the joy of this. I mean, the average citizen wants you to ask questions on their behalf. They don't want you to pull out your PhD and check subsection 5 plus 6 and see whether the minister is telling the truth. They want you to ask straight on. What's going on here? There is no disturbance you whatsoever in the Conservative Party. But that rebellion is not dead. The legislation is gone, John. It's finished. The only thing they're not gone. And they've lost everything. They were in the government lobby this evening. The atmosphere in the government lobby was excellent this evening. There was no difficulty about it. Well, your opponents also saying that they've won in a sense because they've drawn a line under maastricht and prevented you going any further with any kind of integration and effectively have forced you to outlaw any possibility to return to the ERA. I don't, but I certainly don't wish to go back to the exchange rate mechanism at the moment. Under any circumstances at the moment, you can see the difficulties that actually exist in the exchange rate mechanism in other countries. Now, it's not all just been straight news for you, clearly. You know, you've been stoned on TV. You've danced, you've sung on camera. I know you're a former chorister. So you know, even so, is that, isn't that quite an unusual thing for a news journalist to do? Is there a case or is there not a case for saying the news reader shouldn't be part of the story that audiences want a more bland figure? I don't think the presenter of news has a responsibility to evade the truth that he or she is a human being. And I think the attraction in many ways.