Argument
The lost language of debate
by Barrie Saunders
Why we need to resurrect the quality current affairs interview and discussion.
This year’s top priority for the management of Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand has to be the production of in-depth studio current affairs interview and debate that generates light on complex issues, instead of the heat which occurs far too frequently.
Whereas audiences in other English speaking countries can hear really good current affairs interviews and debates, that option is not available here, unless you subscribe to Sky TV or use the web.
The recent Kim Hill-Don Brash and Paul Holmes-Lianne Dalziel interviews, were classic examples of the New Zealand genre of interviewing – all about what the interviewer thinks and too little about the views of the interviewee. Many of our top interviewers have lost the plot. They now seem to think they are actors in the political landscape, free to propagate their views (typically left of centre), masquerading as a preamble to questions. The public is the big loser.
There are, of course, some exceptions – Susan Wood, Geoff Robinson and Chris Laidlaw tend to avoid the worst excesses described above. One rare standout was Brian Edwards’s National Radio interview with Roderick Deane a few years ago. Other exceptions include the fawning/gushing interview where the subject holds views similar to the interviewer.
The sole purpose of my company is the management of public policy issues. But I cannot recall an occasion where we all felt the need to discuss an interview or “debate”. Viewing or listening to these programmes is professionally very much an optional matter.
What’s gone wrong? The answer goes back to the journalistic style of the 1950s and 1960s. During that time, our newspapers were very straightforward and there was an emphasis on facts, with reporters neutrally reporting what different parties said. Media academics of the 60s bewailed the fact that we had little interpretive journalism. Today we have little else and establishing the hard facts can be difficult, although daily papers can and do perform that role from time to time.
Until the 1960s we had no private radio and the NZBC only started its news service early in the decade. The radio current affairs programme Checkpoint started in 1968. TV current affairs programmes such as Compass did not get under way until the mid-1960s.
In this pioneering era of radio and television current affairs, the old constraints were eased and interviewers and producers were given the freedom to engage more vigorously with politicians and other industry or community leaders. For those involved, it was an exciting time and the public liked it also. In the UK, the pioneer of this new style of interviewing was Sir Robin Day. Armed with a law degree, Day could cut to the chase in a robust and professional manner.
Since then, the sophisticated interviewer offshore has recognised that verbally beating up the interviewee frequently yields little in the way of real information. Too few in New Zealand have worked that out.
Sadly for everyone today, the politicians and others have become media-trained and have built up sets of skills to deal with the hectoring interviewer. Media trainers’ first lesson is that the purpose of the interview is to get a few points across – not answer the questions. They teach bridging techniques to get from the question to the point to be made, without looking evasive.
Arguably, the best TV current affairs programme accessible to New Zealanders is Sunday, which can be found on Sky News and in a different form on Prime. This weekly programme features politics, economics, business, health issues and the arts.
For example, a few weeks ago, I was impressed by the way Australian interviewer Laurie Oakes handled Liberal Minister Tony Abbott about his role in a trust to finance political work against Pauline Hansen, a politician who had been jailed, possibly as a result of this trust’s work.
Abbott is a bright and aggressive operator and now Health Minister. The interviewers presented him with some very blunt propositions and, unlike a typical New Zealand interviewer, let him answer the question. They then bowled in another blunt proposition and sat back while he answered. The interviewers left it to the audience to judge whether Abbott had dealt adequately with the questions. It made good television.
The McNeil-Lehrer news hour on US public television in the 1980s was the best daily television current affairs programme I have watched on a regular basis. It is now presented by Jim Lehrer alone and can be seen on SBS in Australia and Auckland’s Triangle TV. It is civilised and informative, without being patsy. It would be great if one of our channels could bring that programme to New Zealand for off-peak hours, even though it is very US-oriented.
The Hard Talk interviews on BBC World, mostly done by Tim Sebastian, are a good example of hard-hitting studio interviews. Occasionally, Sebastian gets a little curmudgeonly, but his questions are always intelligent and probing, the subject is treated fairly and the interviews have structure and coherence. Transcribed, they would read well.
Page 1 2 
