tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720312218941349902.post3703685398449047081..comments2023-11-02T12:20:28.033+00:00Comments on plenty more fish: no, john humphrysRobert Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12347761587707437261noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720312218941349902.post-13258018952034821382010-04-13T08:48:05.654+01:002010-04-13T08:48:05.654+01:00Sorry that should obviously read tough in the firs...Sorry that should obviously read tough in the first line!!! Touching wouldn't work on the radio.Salvadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11432574180945160475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720312218941349902.post-17552363839590471752010-04-13T08:47:07.685+01:002010-04-13T08:47:07.685+01:00In general though these "I'm going to be ...In general though these "I'm going to be a touch interviewer" moments are getting a bit tiresome. I heard the head of BBC3 being interviewed about the decision to use Lindsay Lohan to front a programme on child-trafficking. Whatever one thinks of that, the head of BBC3 was making the kind of predictable case but from the tone of the Today interviewer it was as if he was suggesting the establishment of a Fourth Reich. Ultimately it just becomes counter-productive. He kept demanding Paxman-like that Danny Cohen give him specific examples of programmes fronted by celebs that didn't work and Cohen kept saying - reasonably enough - that he wouldn't single out specific programmes on air. In the end I had more sympathy for the interviewee and, as you say, nothing was illuminated.Salvadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11432574180945160475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720312218941349902.post-29583996407635168522010-04-12T23:42:15.902+01:002010-04-12T23:42:15.902+01:00Fair point. That's what I think he's getti...Fair point. That's what I think he's getting at, definitely. But it also sounded like he was trying to be clever with language, and pin his interviewee down with his laser-like precision. In terms of forensic precision, I don't think he has much of a case, which is annoying, because it distracted from the possibility of a sensible discussion, which he certainly didn't get once the pair were flailing about in the semantics. Why couldn't he just say, 'Well, saying you intend to do make cuts is easy, but just how are you going to manage it? How big a priority is it? What services will be lost as a result?'Robert Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347761587707437261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720312218941349902.post-63640221857214644102010-04-12T16:57:25.270+01:002010-04-12T16:57:25.270+01:00I think you're maybe being slightly unfair to ...I think you're maybe being slightly unfair to JH. In this context there's an important difference between 'hope' and 'intend'. 'Intend' sounds like they are actually going to do it if they get in. 'Hope' is just 'it would be nice if we could'. Makes a lot of difference to the voter.Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11509138255889428646noreply@blogger.com