BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Newsnight

 
 
Turk
23:14 / 07.11.01
If you're looking for television news that is a little more indepth than Dan Rather's flag-fest you could do worse than trying this link to a Realplayer version of the BBC's Newsnight programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/latest.ram

It is British based so the Americans here might not find it all relevant but it's worth a check all the same.
 
 
sleazenation
11:00 / 08.11.01
I'm a big fan of newsnight. Especially its almost post-pub slot. I shall never forget how much i laughed as Jeremy Paxman (possibly the BBC's most feared interviewer) as he doggedly pursued Former home secutary, Michael Howard, asking the same question 14 times, refusing to be fobbed off with with anything other than a yes or no answer.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:30 / 08.11.01
The marvellous thing is that all the politicians are wise to his little tricks now, yet he still manages to make them look like complete puddings.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:43 / 08.11.01
Yeah, even if Newsnight itself isn't always free from the kind of 'news' broadcasting that makes my eyes bleed (their "special reports" can still be very Day Today) - Jeremy Paxman is a bit of a hero. Two things I like best about him:

1. The way he's tough on everyone, pretty much equally, thus showing up the people who are full of shit. The edition where he first had a couple of anti-war people, and asked them the difficult questions, and then interviewed the Labour chairman guy was brilliant, and yet so frustrating - basically the fucko wouldn't even attempt to even understand the idea that there's more than one type of viewpoint that's against the bombings... it went something like this:

Paxman: "So what would you say to those people who agree we need to take some kind of action, perhaps even military action, but who don't feel that the bombing is an effective strategy?"

Labour fucko: "Well, I think we need to remember how many people died on September 11 and realise that we can't just let Bin Laden get away with it."

2. The way that, after he's conducted another particularly depressing, frustrating interview that yet again leads one to conclude that the People In Charge are both stupid and malign, dear Paxman will often turn back to the camera, and let out a deeply troubled, weary sigh, or raise his eyebrows in "I know, I know, what can you do?" resignation. The look on his face after the American senator told him he hoped that the FBI etc would treat people differently if they weren't US citizens (on the same show as the above) was just priceless.

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
Not Here Still
16:04 / 08.11.01
ooh, the Michael Howard bit was great.

Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I did not overrule him
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I must say, I did not overrule him at all..
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?

Etc etc - when they showed it on '100 Greatest TV moments ever' they had to cut it short.

However, being a Radio 4 kinda guy, my money is on John Humphreys any day...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
18:50 / 08.11.01
I have to join the Paxman cheersquad, too. Originally, I thought he was just an arsehole, but he's really fucking good at what he does. Flyboy's mention of the interview with the US Senator about nationality and investigations in the wake of September 11 was indeed one of the finest pieces of TV I've seen. It's weird - you could almost hear people across the country holding their hands to their mouths and wondering if Paxman had just gotten comparisons to Soviet Russia and a mention of different investigative treatment based on nationality out of a Person In Power. And he fucking had. Genius.
 
 
Pin
08:09 / 09.11.01
It's not just me, is it? He doe slook a tiny bit like Chris Morris 'n' all...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:15 / 09.11.01
I gotta say, NMA, I'm kind of torn on the whole Paxman/Humphrys thing...
What say we get 'em both together and start an argument BETWEEN them?
Then retire to a safe distance.
(Possibly get David Starkey in his "Moral Maze" persona to officiate.)
Mmm. NASTY.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:21 / 09.11.01
I did find Paxman's book The English terribly trite, though.

(Starkey is fairly useless as well)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:26 / 09.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Kit-Cat Club:

(Starkey is fairly useless as well)


Hey, I never said I particularly liked the guy- he just makes very good radio when arguing.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:33 / 09.11.01
Oh dear, I actually meant that he is fairly useless as a historian, didn't make that clear, sorry... as a radio git he is excellent, and is by all accounts quite a personable chap as well (if you like that sort of thing - some of my best friends are Tories, &c)
 
 
Turk
16:21 / 09.11.01
Actually Starkey produced one of the formative modern studies of the Tudors before he got into his broadcasting career, he just gets bad press from the beardo brigrade because he makes their work popular and accessible.


[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: D ]
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
08:57 / 30.11.01
Starkey should have stuck to the radio if you ask me. He just looks so wooden on television, I kept wondering why I was watching this immobile, over dressed man speaking in repeated cliches, about expensive but cheesy re-enactments. The history sort of got lost in there somewhere.

[ 30-11-2001: Message edited by: Mr.Karika ]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:57 / 30.11.01
Hum. My problem with Starkey as historian is that his court-centric view of history is, IMO, flawed and presents an incomplete and in some respects facile view of history, especially with regard to periods outside Tudor politics - though the work he did on court spaces is quite interesting. The problem is that his view of politics, though more flexible than (eg) Elton's, is partial - he effectively discounts institutions outside the court. It's like a rerun of the old 'great men' theory. Only natural, of course, that an historian should overstate his case, but the presentation of this case as fact is irritating.

I don't think he is very highly regarded in some beardo circles, but this is probably less to do with his taking other people's ideas and making them popular (hardly anyone else writes on courts as the sole loci of influence) and more to do with the fact that they think he is wrong...

[ 30-11-2001: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]
 
 
rizla mission
15:35 / 30.11.01
My problem with Starkey is that everytime I turn on the radio, he seems to be on it talking a load of rot.

Which isn't what I don't pay my licence fee for!
 
 
captain piss
17:16 / 30.11.01
I like PAxman when he's just kind of laughing at the preposterousness of what someone has said. I remember seeing a classic performance on Newsnight a couple of years ago, when he was interviewing a Swiss sports journalist on the whole phenomenon of European soccer managers, and why they were doing so well in the UK.

Paxman: Now, they do seem to be talking a slightly different language these European managers

Journalist: Ah, yes, I can tell you why that is

Paxman < eagerly interested>: Oh really, can you?

Journalist <serious>: Yes, because they are from France, Germany and Italy. They speak different languages there

Paxman < exploding with laughter>: I KNOW THAT!!!
 
  
Add Your Reply