Robust Questions, Rude Interruptions and the Lost Art of Courtesy.

In the space of three minutes my quietly begun and enjoyable day was derailed by Radio 4. I listen to the Today programme most mornings, often with a mixture of interest and irritation. The irritation is usually at the aggressive, rude, badgering approach to interviewing; an obsessive admiration on the part of the intrerviewer for playing the devil's advocate, undermining the person interviewed and demonstrating to the audience how clever, ruthless and cynically correct the interviewer is. A week or two ago Lord Falconer demolished John Humphreys wall of shoogly words and opinionated self assertions.

This morning it was reported that the RSPCA had successfully prosecuted members of a a fox hunt, located in David Cameron's balliwick. They played sound footage of the hunt and the kill, then reported the judge as saying the fact the RSPCA had spent in excess fo £300,000 bringing the prosecution was 'staggering', heard one of the guilty ridicule the RSPCA for wasting so much money on prosecuting such behaviour, and then Justin Webb interviewed the chief executive of the RSPCA.

Take time to listen to it on IPlayer. In it Webb is biased, rude, cajoling, deaf to any answer he is given, loud in making his own opinion heard, and an utter failure as an interviewer. That is, if an interviewer is there to enable intelligent comment, question where that comment is unclear, and generally be present as the facilitator of a discussion the public might want to listen to. Webb seemed to operate with an hermeneutic of suspicion, assuming the chief Executive of one of the oldest charities in the land was an evasive power mongerer out to prove a point, or a sentimental fool who thought £300,000 was not a ridiculous price for a fox.

First, as was pointed out between rude interruptions, the RSPCA was upholding the law of the land, and by the way when it comes to fox hunting it is, quite literally, the law of the land.

Second, the Crown Prosecution Service have repeatedly and habitually  rejected such cases due to lack of evidence. This time the RSPCA gathered the evidence and brought the prosecution itself.  The defendants didn't even contest the charges and pleaded guilty.

Third, Webb made no concession to the point, made several times by the interviewee having to speak above the hectoring of Webb, that the fox hunters were deliberately and knowingly breaking a law they didn't agree with. A Standard Grade in citizenship would teach any of us that such a precedent of selecting which laws we agree with and only obeying them would be, well, socially inconvenient and legal nonsense!

And finally, for now, the RSPCA is older than the police force in this country. Was founded to prevent cruelty and protect animals from needless or deliberate suffering, and as such is an important expression of our humanity, care of creation, and responsibility to all other sentient beings on this planet.

Justin Webb's lack of respect, common courtesy and professional skill as a prime time interviewer leaves me, to use the words of a certain Judge, 'staggered'. A highly professional CEO of a charity deserves better than such cheap baiting and uninformed opinion badly disguised as robust intelligence.

I was brought up on farms in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire. I've seen the damage foxes do on farms in the countryside. Farmers hate them, and have little compunction in killing them. They are not my favourite animal either. But fox hunting with hounds has been defined as a practice that causes unnecessary suffering and banned by law, along with hare coursing and badger baiting. Is a fox worth £300,000? What price do we put on cruelty, inflicted suffering, and the blatant ignoring of the law by the socially privileged? Not one word, not one, from the interviewer acknowledging the values that lie behind these questions, and that underpin the work of the RSPCA.

Oh. And to Justin's jibe that people don't give to the RSPCA to see the funds used in pursuit of such cases, in the words of the Panto audience, "Oh yes we do".

...................................

Update - the following complaint has been submitted online by me to the BBC.

Full Complaint: Justin Webb from the start of the interview was hectoring, sceptical and biased. Repeated interruption and confrontational tone made it difficult to answer or correct Webb's bias and uninformed comment. The lack of respect and courtesy shown to a spokesperson of a leading charity was embarrassingly obvious, and unacceptable. The key question of law-breaking was drowned out by questioning the judgement of the RSPCA to fund and pursue prosecution.The issue of the CPS declining to pursue previous charges was likewise swept aside. No recognition in Webb's questioning that law breakers should be prosecuted, instead blame for the RSPCA for using charitable giving to bring the case. The claim that 'the public' would resent their money gifts being used for such a purpose is unfounded, and an unfair criticism of a judgement based on previous experience of CPS responses. The setting up of a fighting fund for such cases was likewise rubbished by the interviewer, despite the clear explanation given. This in the context of a prosecution for animal cruelty, by pursuing a sport now outlawed and defined as a cruel sport. Why on earth would the RSPCA not bring the case? The comment of the judge in the case, which was used to set up the discussion was itself tendentious. An interview ought to clarify issues, allow viewpoints to be heard, weigh evidence in an exchange of views, and this in an ethos of courtesy, respect and intelligent listening, by interviewer and audience.

Comments

[Al]

I agree with you - it was a disgraceful "interview" by Justin Webb, whose constant interruptions and obviously biased point of view had no place in a serious discussion. I'm not an RSPCA donor nor a big supporter but still found the interviewee's treatment really appalling.

[angalmond]

My mornings have become much more joyful since I switched [after over 50 years] from Radio 4 to Chris Evans on Radio 2. There are enough news bulletins to keep me informed - and discussions are intelligent, witty, but never unpleasant.

[I agree with your post though!]

Advent blessings x