COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Interview 3
This interview was between Jeremy Paxman's and Michael Howard interview about an event that took place in the House of Commons, and some statements and accused threatening to Mr Louis that Michael Howard had apparently said.
The interview started off with Paxman quickly interrogating Howard asking him if the allegations towards him were true, it could be seen as if he was implying that he was a liar. Howard quickly answered stating that none of the allegations came from his campaign and that the journalist that wrote the story hadn’t even spoke to any of his team. The first thing I notice with both men is that they are both well presented with suits on, which is a good start to having a good interview, and that they both speak slowly and clearly for the other person and audience to hear, however they both came across quite moody and tended to frown at one another. Paxman spoke clearly but it came across less formal than Howard, in the way his words came across.
Paxman then goes on to imply again he is lying as he said “clearly they came from somebody sympathetic to you though” with seems as he is saying that Howard is behind the whole thing. Howard denying this and continues to speak in a formal manner. Paxman then goes on to support Howard by saying asking if Howard thinks such stories are cheap and nasty and bring shame on anyone who spreads them. This could also be seen as maybe a hint of making fun of Howard, who immediately replies saying that he doesn’t think they should be “wasting anybody’s time talking about stories like that”. This came across quite rude as he then goes on to say there are far more important things to discuss than that. He soon became very rude and commented on how he started off the interview, saying that he didn’t introduce him by talking about more important things he had recently done. Howard later on butted in the middle of Paxman’s sentence and they moaned by saying he hope the whole interview wasn’t going to be able that topic. This is a bad thing to do in the interview because it’s impolite and makes you come across as a bad person, and he clearly hadn’t prepared himself for the interview and showed that he had a lack of patience. The best thing to do was just to smile and answer the questions even if their out of your comfort zone, politely. Howard however at this point, had continued to speak in the same manner and hadn’t changed his reactions towards Howard.
Paxman then asked if Howard had ever lied in an interview, which could imply that he thinks Howard is lying in his interview that they were undergoing. I think this is inappropriate as it is quite a rude thing to ask in a formal situation and can make things awkward. Howard in his own right replied saying “certainly not” and went on to say he made a full account of the dismissal of Derek Louis to the House of Commons, to prove that he hasn’t lied.
Later on in the interview after Paxman asked if there was anything Howard would change about your statement to the House of Commons and Howard saying no, Paxman reads out a statement from Howard, and then a statement from Louis, Paxman then asked Howard if he was saying Louis was lying, Howard turned around and said no, with a lot to say t back him up, before Howard could even get through the whole sentence, Paxman butted in and said “so you are saying that Mr Louis lied” The interview quickly went downhill as Paxman reads out again a statement from Louis saying that Howard threatened to overrule him, they both start to speak over each other more frequently and both start to raise their voices, during Howard replying to the statement, Paxman rudely speaks over him many times saying the same thing “did you threaten to overrule him?” This soon got annoying as he wouldn’t stop asking the same question, you couldn’t hear Howard’s reply properly and because Howard only answered with “I did not overrule him” Paxman continued to ask the same question over and over again.
Paxman then changes his posture, by leaning in with his hands by his face, he laughs and says he is going to be rude, his tone of his voices changes to a more light tone and he is in a less formal manner. By this time they are both talking over each other and it’s really hard to understand what is going on as it just sounds like gibberish. Paxman then asks again if he threatened to overrule him, again Howard avoided the direct question, in doing so gave Paxman a grin on his face. Paxman then gives up and changes subject, which I think was the best thing to do as it would have gotten worse and Paxman probably would have been very informal and started laughing. Again a really long speech from Howard and then Paxman said he would leave it at that. They politely thanked each other and ended the interview on a good note.
This is a bad interview because they both didn’t keep a formal exterior and it was awkward to watch. Good points were that they continued to keep eye contact throughout the interview, and they remained seated without fidgeting. But the conversation would have made the audience fidgeting as it was hard to watch as so much was being said it was hard to keep with it, and Paxman repeating himself 12 times was hard to watch and got annoying, if this interview was in the morning I would have definitely turned it off because it would be to hard to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment