Liveinadive wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/richard-madeley-gavin-williamson-good-morning-britain More of this and it shouldn't take Richard bloody Madeley to do it, it should be the norm.
monkey wrote:A good answer would have been ‘I shouldn’t have said it. Tensions were running high, everyone was furious with Russia, I’m happy with my conduct during that episode but that wasn’t my finest hour’ or similar codswallop. He didn’t get to where he is by answering questions though. Just the opposite.
monkey wrote:Ah you’re drunk. Carry on.
Liveinadive wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/richard-madeley-gavin-williamson-good-morning-britain More of this and it shouldn't take Richard bloody Madeley to do it, it should be the norm.
Nice enough sentiment, but there's a big 'if' there. More likely our Richard will find that no big name politician will agree to be interviewed by him anymore. If it does become widespread they can simply stop doing live interviews, or only do them conditionally on seeing the questions in advance, or only be interviewed by journalists they know are sympathetic to them.So I’ve got a new rule when conducting interviews with politicians who won’t answer the question. Three strikes, and you’re out. If all of us interviewers adopt that principle, the quality of political debate on television will immediately and dramatically improve. And viewers will love us for it.
SpaceGazelle wrote:What's a legitimate answer? What you would like to hear? "legitimate" and "answer" should not be things we can put together with a serious face.
SpaceGazelle wrote:How do you expect politicians to answer a question properly in a world as complicated as this?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!