« Previous | Main | Next »

Should politicians be forced to give yes/no answers?

Post categories: All stories in production

Eddie Mair | 05:52 UK time, Saturday, 10 October 2009

One of our listeners thinks...er yes, they should.

We're going to ask the three main UK parties to give us a senior figure willing to try just giving yes or no replies.

Got a good question for them? Email ipm@bbc.co.uk.

In the meantime, let's remember what it's like trying NOT to say yes or no...

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 07:50am on 10 Oct 2009, iantoffee wrote:
Yes / No / Don't know answers would be great but it also demands discipline from the questioner. We hear rather of lot of questions only a nutter could answer yes or no. "Would you consider resignation if ..." "Have you stopped beating your wife?" etc. Our politicians have evolved, Darwinian style, to survive the firing-squad-cos-we-know-you're-guilty style so beloved of our confrontational interviewers.

Complain about this comment
2. At 07:58am on 10 Oct 2009, pjasonyo wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
3. At 07:59am on 10 Oct 2009, pjasonyo wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
4. At 08:20am on 11 Oct 2009, freshweb911 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
5. At 10:32pm on 12 Oct 2009, Deepthought wrote:
Maybe not yes/no, but I'd suggest a 30 second time limit, and if they haven't address the question directly by then, the questioner can cut them off. Repetition, Deviation, and to a lesser extent Hesitation would all be stamped upon. Further questions start, like "Just A Minute", with the previous comments already counted, so new attempts to bluster just result in cutting them off sooner.

Politicians can then at least have time to express their view of the issue, briefly, before they are forced onto the point or else be cut off.
Anyone who cannot understand the general principles of "Just A Minute" don't deserve to be in Parliament

For politicians who refuse to answer - just broadcast the questions that they refuse to have answered on air.

Complain about this comment
6. At 5:58pm on 13 Oct 2009, scotsblood wrote:
I think they should answer the question asked and if this demands a yes or no then that should be included -- however I think you will get qualified yes's and uncertain no's -- the degree of waffle will still be there.
What we all want is concise accurate replies -- to concise accurate questions -- that will be hard for both parties.

Complain about this comment
7. At 6:03pm on 13 Oct 2009, Martperson wrote:
Does being on air prevent a truthfull answer because it is not covered by deferential dogma ?

Complain about this comment
8. At 6:05pm on 13 Oct 2009, Hugh_Mosby-Joaquin wrote:
" If I suggested to you that every time you answer in the negative, you are lying, would you agree with me?"

Complain about this comment
9. At 8:23pm on 13 Oct 2009, Menander1 wrote:
Yes but no. Yes, they should try to give straight answers to each question asked but no, simply giving monosyllabic answers to each question would be pointless and would sound like an interrogation. It's not that politicians don't give simple answers to your questions, they often ignore those questions and invent questions they would like to answer. They also refuse to answer hypothetical questions as if they were some sort of lapse in good taste. What's wrong with hypothetical questions? 'I'm having a barbie tomorrow, what happens if it rains?' Fair point. 'I'd like to win the election but what happens if it's a hung parliament?' I can't possibly discuss that???

Complain about this comment
10. At 10:38am on 17 Oct 2009, newlach wrote:
It was a great programme today. I woke up in darkness with the name Eddie Mair on my mind, reached for the clock and realised that I had had a good lie in (it was 7.15)! Could the brain workers at the BBC not excise Thought For The Day from Today and broadcast IPM at 8.45 on Saturdays instead? Those of a Christian bent will still be able to hear the Reverend Richard Coles for a whole hour from 9 o'clock.

I enjoyed listening to Eddie's "yes/no" answers at the end of the podcast, but I suspect the anti-Eddie brigade who appear to have hijacked "Feedback" will seize upon one answer that questioned his loyalty to Radio 4: "One listener who speaks for several asks how someone so uncommitted got employed in the first place."

So my "yes/no" question is: Should Roger Bolton be . . .?

Complain about this comment
11. At 3:50pm on 17 Oct 2009, Jelle1 wrote:
Great topic on yes/no questions, especially when it broadened to talk about different interview styles. I have been giving Jim Naughtie some coaching hints on his Facebook page. In general, and this includes you Eddie, I think interviewers should always treat the interviewee with respect, and as the interviewer enters the studio, they should say to themselves: I will take my personality with me, but leave my ego behind.

Complain about this comment
12. At 07:05am on 18 Oct 2009, iantoffee wrote:
Just heard the podcast. It shows how hard it is to ask questions where a yes/no answer provides meaningful information.

Complain about this comment
13. At 07:12am on 18 Oct 2009, iantoffee wrote:
Isn't the real goal of an interview for the listener to get a feel for whether they trust the policiian in general? Only then is it worth asking the yes/no question "... so will we pull out of Iraq in 2010?"

Very thought provoking thread

Complain about this comment
14. At 5:38pm on 18 Oct 2009, slightly-nerdy wrote:
I think that part of the problem is having live interviews. The interviewee can stall on awkward questions, knowing that the interviewer will soon have to move on.

How about pre-recording more interviews? You could broadcast the informative parts (if any). And you could make the whole interview available on the website.

Complain about this comment
15. At 04:39am on 19 Oct 2009, NonEnglish wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
16. At 6:22pm on 19 Oct 2009, FairnessFighter wrote:
This debate seems to assume too that somehow the Journalist is always in the right with their line of questioning - sometimes a politican just can't accept the premise of the question, because the premise is wrong. That's the problem with star presenters who get a brief and a day looking at something, rather than serious journalists who know their subject inside out.

Want a straight answer? Ignore Paxman, read the FT.

Complain about this comment
17. At 03:39am on 20 Oct 2009, NonEnglish wrote:
ha ha...congratulations on censoring my earlier posting (#15). Let's be clear that I didn't use any foul or abusive language. I must be one of the few people who can easily rile the BBC with my comments. The truth hurts doesn't it, Auntie? Fact #1: Paxman did ask the same question 14 times and he did admit that he only did it because the next item was delayed. Fact #2: Tony Blair did not answer the question in parliament about the combined MMR jab for his youngest son, Leo at at time when his govt. was telling everyone it was safe. Go ahead, remove this posting as well. Let's see how many times you are going to censor me?

Complain about this comment
18. At 2:02pm on 21 Oct 2009, Jelle1 wrote:
Fairness Fighter has put his/her finger on it. I do get the impression that the longer a "star" presenter is in the job, the slacker they get with their basic interviewing skills. Compare the performance on Today of Evan Davis and Justin Webb with Jim Naughtie and John Humphrys.

Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

Jump to more content from this blog

About this blog

The programme that starts with its listeners. Join daily discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.