Well, that settles it: apparently the Today programme’s John Humphrys is not the BBC’s pushiest, most bumptious political interviewer – because his female colleagues, including Mishal Husain and Emily Maitlis, interrupt more.
The Sunday Times carried out a highly scientific experiment, which involved listening to/watching 10 recent interviews by each of a selection of high-profile BBC political journalists, and totting up how many times they interrupted their subjects.
Husain “cut in every 46 seconds on average,” it found, compared with Humphrys’ 51 seconds, while Maitlis did so every 28 seconds.
It’s not exactly a randomised control trial, so I wouldn’t expect to see it being published in a reputable journal any time soon. In fact, I’m not sure I’d even accept it for the purposes of settling an argument in the pub.
Apart from anything else, some politicians can rattle out far more words in a minute than others.
But even setting questions of scientific method aside, just tallying up interruptions tells you next to nothing about whether what you’ve just heard or watched is an informative political interview that contributes to the national conversation – or a waste of seven minutes.
Politicians are people, albeit cynical and highly media-trained ones. They have different styles and modes. Some are full of bluster and bonhomie and – frankly – bullshit. Or they maddeningly repeat ad nauseum the two or three tight lines their advisers have decided should be the “top line”: the main thrust of today’s story. Interrupting can help to puncture that.
But others choose their words meticulously, thinking and arguing in a neat straight line, so that if you cut them off mid-way through a sentence, the most telling point is lost. Particularly if the question is a precise and challenging one, it can sometimes be well worth hanging back.
It is a journalist’s job to challenge politicians, not defer to them; but also to help us all understand the arguments at work – and, sometimes, the gaping holes in them. Listening is an essential part of the toolkit. So is interrupting.
When I am listening back to interviews I have done myself, I am just as likely to curse myself – and not always silently (“Shut up, Heather!”) – for interrupting just as it was getting interesting as for letting them ramble.
In political interviewing, as in conversation, tone, context and mood are important – and they just can’t be captured with a stopwatch. Which is why robots can’t carry out a good political interview – yet.
