Talk:Jeremy Paxman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

1

I've reverted the number of times the question was asked back to 12, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4182569.stm; editor of Newsnight explaining that 14 is commonly believed but incorrect. Also cf. Jeremy_Paxman and Michael_Howard 205.228.73.12 10:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I have added Paxman's birthplace, a paragraph on the controversy surrounding Paxman's tough interviewing, and a link to a BBC article addressing Paxman's interview style. 62.252.224.17 13:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

What's a newsman? Is it like a reporter or like an news anchor (Er..news reader)? --rmhermen

Paxman's more like an anchor than anything else, I suppose. But he's more than just a news reader - in fact, he's particularly known for his fearsome interviewing technique. The general format of Newsnight (the show he's mostly on) is a few indepth reports (which will be by reporters), which are followed-up with interviews (either in studio or via linkup) or in studio panel discussions, conducted by the show's presenter. So he both introduces the items and then follows up on them, but he doesn't present the reports themselves. (Probably hopelessly unclear, this.) --Bth

A newsman is kind of hybrid which may not have a direct parallel in the US; in Britain we have a number of peripatetic operators of this kind: Paxman, Peter Sissons, Trevor McDonal inter al who have a wide-ranging brief across the sphere of current events and are frequently called upon to extend their general ambit of operations e.g. at times of elections or during major catastrophes, etc. user:sjc

---

Tarquin, good call on the Michael Howard question thing, it had slipped my mind. I just wish I had it on video, it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen. user:sjc

Thank you for putting in the details! -- Tarquin

He asked the question "Did you threaten to overrule him?" 14 times. Mintguy

One thing I don't understand... how did Michael Howard evade the question if he answered, "I did not overrule him"? It sounds like a fine answer to the question, "Did you overrule him?" I can't find a single transcript of the interview on the web. --Tayssir

But that wasn't the question! The question was, Did you threaten to overrule him? -- Avaragado 09:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the answer of course was that he did, but couldn't admit to it. Pcb21| Pete 10:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BBC come to the rescue. DYTTOH? (Real Video) Mintguy (T) (You have to wait about 4 minutes for the interesting bit)

Is he still with Newsnight? He doesn't seem to have been on for ages. Bonalaw 09:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He's probably off writing another book over the summer. He's done it before I think. -- Avaragado 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Here is the whole thing. It's not on any reference site that is likely to stick around, so I'm using the talk as a temporary home. I think the extract is fair-use, but where does it belong: Wikisource, Wikiquote? I read that the video of this infamous sequence is used in training journalists in India to contrast with the deference their politicians were used to. 134.244.154.182 11:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PAXMAN. Right, uh . . can you help us with this then . . ?

You stated in your statement that the Leader of the Opposition had said that I (that is, you) personally told Mr Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately, and that when Mr Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, "I threatened to INSTRUCT HIM to do it".

Derek Lewis says "Howard had CERTAINLY told me that the Governor of Parkhurst should be suspended, and had threatened to overrule me". Are you saying Mr Lewis is lying ?

HOWARD. I have given a full account of this, and the position is what I told the House of Commons, and let me tell you what the position is . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupts) So you ARE saying that Mr Lewis lied ?

HOWARD. (re-interrupts) Let me tell you exactly what the position is. I was entitled to be consulted and I was consulted, I was entitled to express an opinion and I did express an opinion. I was not entitled to INSTRUCT Derek Lewis what to do, and I did NOT instruct him what to do.

PAXMAN. Well, HIS version . .

HOWARD. And you will understand and recall that Mr Marriot was NOT suspended, he was MOVED, and Derek Lewis told the select committee of the House of Commons that it was his opinion, Derek Lewis's opinion, that he should be moved immediately. That is what happened.

PAXMAN. Mr Lewis says "I (that is, Mr Lewis), told him what we had decided about Marriot, and why" . . "he, (that is, you), exploded - simply moving the governor was politically unpalatable, it sounded indecisive, it would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriot he would have to consider overruling me."

HOWARD. Mr Marriot . .

PAXMAN. You can't BOTH be right.

HOWARD. Mr Marriot was NOT suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. I . . I . . was not entitled to INSTRUCT Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him.

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriot was not suspended. I . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. . . . did not . .overrule Derek Lewis.

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you THREATEN to overrule him ?

HOWARD. I took advice on what I could or could not do . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him Mr Howard ?

HOWARD. . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did NOT overrule Derek Lewis . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. . . Mr Marriot was NOT suspended.

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. (pauses). I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. . . in GREAT detail, before the House of Commons . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I note that you're not answering the question of whether you THREATENED to overrule him.

HOWARD. Well, the important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind . .

PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude, I'm sorry, but it's a straight yes or no question which requires a straight yes or no answer. Did you threaten to overrule him ?

HOWARD. I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him because I was not ENTITLED to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did.

PAXMAN. With respect, that is NOT answering the question of whether you THREATENED to overrule him.

HOWARD. It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt in detail with this before the House of Commons and before the Select Committee.

PAXMAN. With respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you THREATENED to overrule him.

HOWARD. Well you see . . the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that.

PAXMAN. Uh . . we'll leave that aspect there.

---

Another beauty that belongs in the same archive. This time a labour politician

PAXMAN: Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts in terms of good and evil?

BLAIR: I don't think so, no, I think that whether you're a Christian or you're not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil.

PAXMAN: You don't pray together for example?

BLAIR: No, we don't pray together Jeremy, no.

PAXMAN: Why do you smile?

BLAIR: Because - why do you ask me the question?

PAXMAN: Because I'm trying to find out how you feel about it.

BLAIR: Possibly.

---

"Contrary to widespread assumption, Paxman is not Jewish."

I am instructed by Avaragadoto state my reasons for adding the line about Paxman not being Jewish. Given that s/he has now twice deleted this point without troubling to advance any reasons at all, one might think the onus was really on him/her to do some explaining. Such aggressive deletion is all very well in the case of obvious vandalism, but I respectfully suggest it's neither constructive nor courteous to summarily, repeatedly and facetiously delete what is clearly a serious contribution, and then go on to demand that the other party submit reasons.

But anyway here goes.

Q. A quick question for the Grand High Inquisitor of Newsnight: How has your Jewish heritage affected your life and work?

("Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman answers questions sent by BBC News Online users") [1]

The Jewishness, real or imagined, of this high-profile public figure is distinctly relevant. People inevitably judge the attitude or agenda of a commentator by what they imagine to be his/her background, origins, upbringing etc etc. The exchange between Paxman and Blair transcribed immediately above this entry is a case in point. Read it again from the point of view of someone who assumes Paxman to be Jewish. His questioning of the avowedly Christian Blair about his spiritual links with the even more avowedly Christian Bush might well take on a different resonance.

Are the religious affiliations of the Prime Minister and the President also irrelevant? Is it irrelevant that the Leader of the Opposition is the son of Jewish asylum seekers? Today's news has included the fact that a political poster on behalf the Labour Party allegedly depicting him as Fagin, along with another showing him and Oliver Letwin as pigs, has caused widespread offence. Again, Paxman's Jewishness or otherwise would surely be of some relevance if he happened to be reporting or interviewing on that subject. The assumption that he was Jewish would quite possibly colour people's perceptions -- in whatever way.

Another example that springs to mind is the fact that Paxman -- who is more than just a neutral reporter and interviewer, if there can be such a thing, but also an author and commentator -- happens to be interested in the subject of circumcision. Of course the anti-circumcision lobby includes some Jews who feel they personally have suffered through being circumcised, while other Jews would defend what they see as an important part of their tradition and culture. This is a highly controversial and personal subject which I think it would be safe to say has some link with the question of Jewishness. If I was reading/watching/listening to a Paxman piece on the subject I would certainly be interested to know how much of a personal stake he had in the issue.

How far should we take this censorious attitude to miscellaneous personal data about the subjects of biographies? Is it really relevant which school someone went to, or who they're married to, or what their hobbies are? Even if we take the question of a public figure's religious background to be no more than harmless human interest, it probably sheds more light than, for example, that story about Paxman recieving the stolen Enigma machine in the post -- what exactly does that tell us about him? -- but I can't see anyone taking exception to that.

I strongly suggest that some properly thought-out reasons be advanced on this page to support the still unexplained deletion of a reasonable and serious point. Just think, I could probably have contributed a whole article in the time it has taken to write this...

Harry 01:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) [not Jewish in case anyone's wondering]

Is it a widespread assumption though? That's news to me. Bonalaw 10:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the line for a couple of reasons:

• I don't believe it's a widespread assumption, and no source was provided for the assertion (one link to an old BBC news page where one person makes that assumption does not make it widespread).
• There was no reason for the addition, as far as I could detect. I don't recall ever seeing or reading any article which discussed his religion (or lack of one) and how it affects his life or his work. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accused him of taking a viewpoint, or following a line of questioning, because of particular religious beliefs. If they have, then that would be a justified addition: but only in that context, with that supporting material. Currently there's no justification for the line: you might as well put, as I'd said in the edit summary of my original delete, that he's not a werewolf.

Background is relevant, yes: his personal beliefs might be relevant. But I haven't seen any evidence for that yet: only an unsubstantiated assertion about the general public's beliefs about him. I don't think that belongs here. -- Avaragado 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Nobody has ever accused him of taking a viewpoint, or following a line of questioning, because of particular religious beliefs."

A bold statement indeed, can we be so sure of that?

"If they have, then that would be a justified addition."

But only "if"? So if one day someone did invoke the issue of his religious background, then it would suddenly become relevant after all? Encyclopaedia entries aren't there to limp passively after whatever assertions happen to get bandied about in the media from one week to the next. Was Michael Howard's ancestry relevant before it was widely known, before he quite recently started to embrace it in public and even make a feature of it? Yes it was, given his hard line on immigration then and now -- and the same goes for Michael Portillo and his Republican Spanish heritage, or the state-funded university education both men benefited from before allegedly making it harder to for others to do the same. This is more than just human interest, not that there's anything wrong with the odd bit of human interest either.

As for "one link to an old BBC news page" -- how many links would constitute "widespread", and would it be more convincing if it was new?? The point was just that even a very quick web search (and I'm certainly not planning to spend any more time researching such a minor issue, already blown way out of proportion) shows my point is not completely unfounded, and is at least worthy of a moment or two's serious consideration and discussion rather than unilateral deletion. It's all very well to politely challenge a contributor on the Talk page to substantiate something, but just deleting their words over and over again without explanation is not helpful. Some kind of sensible reasoning is the least we could expect -- and I don't think comparing being Jewish to being a werewolf quite constitutes that.

So how many links, old, new or middle-aged, have been adduced to counter my assertion? None at all so far. We come down to "my gut feeling is worth more than your gut feeling". There's a big difference between "There was no reason for the addition, as far as I could detect" and "this point must be deleted on sight as often as it appears, without explanation or apology". There's also plenty of mischievous edits out there to keep anyone busy who feels their delete finger itching and isn't in a mood for explanations.

I think we should bear in mind that no one contributor owns any article. We are supposed to be improving and refining the content, in a constructive and cooperative spirit, by negociation where necessary -- not appointing ourselves judge jury and executioner, arbitrarily deciding what further additions we feel like allowing in, and then placing the onus on others to submit to some kind of admission test. It's very easy on Wikipedia to censor other people's contributions, and it's a slippery slope: taken to the extreme this attitude is no better than vandalism.

I feel I've spent more than enough time on this subject now, so I'll shut up about it (having toned down the sentence in question from "widespread" to "sometimes"), but of course I don't mean that as an open invitation for anyone to go in and have yet more fun with the delete button...

In the meantime I look forward to seeing some hard proof, backed up with plenty of shining "new" links, that Paxo is, as claimed, not a werewolf. (Actually I wouldn't be altogether surprised if he was, somehow.)

Harry 01:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You omitted my "As far as I'm aware" prefix from your first quote, as well as misrepresenting what I said - the usual old debating tricks, I see!

Contentious statements are constantly being removed in Wikipedia due to lack of evidence, and that's how it should be. One of the central tenets of Wikipedia is no original research. Yes, we do wait for citable sources before commenting here: that's well-established policy. If Paxman's beliefs become an issue, then we're entitled to start reporting that. Another oft-cited policy is Avoid weasel terms - violated by the current text, "Paxman is sometimes assumed to be Jewish, but this is not in fact the case". I'm not trying to "own" the article or censor contributions, of course; that's just another silly debating trick... -- Avaragado 19:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Avaragado and others, there's no need for that sentence regarding Paxman's supposed Jewishness.--CJ 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Interviewing style

Watching Paxman today while watching the election returns (I am American, so I'd not really seen him before), it strikes me that the problem is not that he is rude (which he is) or not deferential enough - the thing that really struck me about him is that he's completely ridiculous. He'll be insanely rude to the Tory, basically using Labour talking points to go at him, and then he'll just turn to the Labour guy, who will say exactly what Paxman was saying just a second before, and then blast him by saying exactly the same things the Tory was saying. The whole exercise seems ridiculous. I wouldn't want to add this myself, since it's original research, but I was wondering if we might be able to improve the discussion of why he's controversial. john k 04:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

John- this is a good point but maybe we should be asking is Jeremy Paxman controversial at all? On the few occasions when he actually speaks his mind and is not merely, as you have pointed out, playing devils advocate (or being just plain rude)- his opinions seem extremely 'establishment'. In other words, they are no different from the mainstream of the British media (the voice of white, male, middle aged, privately educated, southern england). His rude, confrontational, belittling, debating style is pretty much the standard for the British House of Commons, so I do not think that this is a basis for being 'controversial' either. But I dont mean to contradict you- I mean: agreed, lets quantify what 'controversial' means when used to describe Paxman--Fergie 09:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point John - I have to point out though that here in Ireland and over in the UK, that is standard practice in political interviews - Paxman just does it par excellence. If you're up late some night listen to Morning Ireland at RTE Radio 1 - I guarantee every interviewee will be treated that way. If one politician was given an easy ride compared to the other, audiences would cry foul - We like our interviewers to betray no bias. So what I'm saying is that it doesn't even register with native audiences that Paxo lashes into both sides equally. RMoloney 04:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is consistent with the slight sense of surprise I get when watching American news channels which seem to give the pols an easy ride (I am British). Having said that, I didn't think Paxman was on particularly good form that election night. (Though I shuold be careful what I say, it is clear from last nights "Not At" University Challenge that Paxman looks at Wikipedia now and then, and who wouldn't read their own page?! Pcb21| Pete 07:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've often thought about the number of famous people who must have looked themselves up here by now, as well as edited their own articles in some cases I'm sure. Since he recommended us, it's likely he's read his article and quite possibly this talk page. (Talk) 19:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self reference

Anyway, I just removed the following from the article: "Paxman recommended Wikipedia to the contestants of University Challenge, after it featured as the answer to a question on an episode aired on 20 June 2005 on BBC2." While this is all very nice and I was pleased to hear of it, we only mention it because we are Wikipedia, and I find its inclusion excessively self-referential. Anyone disagree? — Trilobite (Talk) 19:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never get so excited about self-references that I'll remove them myself but on the other hand I dont mind if other people remove them. Pcb21| Pete 21:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement was already in Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio which is where it belongs. Thincat 30 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Who took off the part about him being a sex symbol? I wouldn't have thought it was particularly contentious.

Kind of bit of trivia that needs a cite. Pcb21| Pete 2 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

...um, me? Will that do?