Guest Post by Barry Woods
It is my opinion that the BBC in broadcasting the BBC 2 Horizon program ‘Science Under Attack’ did not treat the general public in the UK and at least one of the interviewees with the ‘good faith’ that they should be able to expect from the BBC. After the program aired, I contacted James Delingpole, who was one of the sceptics portrayed in the program and he told me how he was approached to participate by the BBC.
“I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.” – BBC Producer
However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.
Yet, in discussion with a NASA scientist, the presenter Professor Paul Nurse apparently makes a gross factual error informing the viewer that annual man-made CO2 emissions are;
seven times
that of the total natural annual emissions. This raised a number of eyebrows and is now subject to some discussion amongst the blogs, including at Bishop Hill.
That such an apparent major error was presented to the public as fact, in the BBC’s flagship science program, should I think raise questions with respect to the handling of all the issues within the program.
Paul Nurse: The scientific consensus is, of course, that the changes we are seeing are caused by emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. But given the complexity of the climate system, how can we be sure that humans are to blame for this?
Bob Bindschadler[NASA]: We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground. We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn. And that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It’s about seven gigatons per year right now.
Paul Nurse: And is that enough to explain…?
Bob Bindschadler: Natural causes only can produce – yes, there are volcanoes popping off and things like that, and coming out of the ocean, only about one gigaton per year. So there’s just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.
Paul Nurse: So seven times more.
Bob Bindschadler: That’s right.
Paul Nurse: I mean, why do some people say that isn’t the case?
(from a transcript of BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack)
Following the program I contacted James Delingpole and he agreed to a telephone interview about the program. We had a few telephone conversations about the program and he sent me a copy of the email from a BBC producer at the BBC inviting James to participate in the program. (my bold)
“The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions. On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves. Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.”
– BBC Producer to James Delingpole
The contents of that invitation put the presentation of his interview in the program into a different context. In my opinion it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the BBC in failing to present to the public the details of the sceptical argument about climategate and ‘climate science’ yet allowing those involved to present their defence without serious challenge.
The premise will be ‘This is a turbulent time for science. After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.
– BBC Producer to James Delingpole
The BBC is the UK’s national public service broadcaster (funded by a per household TV Licence) and by its Charter it has a duty to its audience to be fair and balanced.
The Horizon program is the BBC’s flagship science program, so when it uses the weight of the BBC’s authority alongside, Sir Professor Paul Nurse, a Nobel Laureate and the new President of the Royal Society it has a clear responsibilty to the public to fairly present the detail of the sceptical views climate science and the issues around the climategate emails.
My interview with James Delingpole
James actually received a lot of criticism from sceptics for somehow ‘failing’ to get across the sceptical arguments in this program. When I spoke to him his frustration was obvious as he said he had spent three hours talking to Professor Paul Nurse about the detail of the climategate emails, the failings of the inquiries and the many and varied sceptical arguments with respect to man-made climate change.
James said he had explained in detail why sceptics describe the inquiries as whitewashes, this included the vested interest of the participants, the fact that no one actually asked Jones about whether he had deleted emails, the failure of scientists to provide data to critics and journals (as scientific process would expect) the importance of hiding the decline in proxies, the fact that scientist had become advocates for policy.
Yet in the program all that comes across is a fade to voice over where Professor Paul Nurse states that James believes the inquiries were whitewashes. Why not allow the public to consider some of these reason from James Delingpole
Why did Professor Phil Jones say to delete emails? Why did he ask colleagues to delete emails relating to the IPCC reports. And most importantly of all. Why did Phil Jones feel the need to ask colleagues to delete these emails?
Those question surely support James Delingpole’s view that the peer-review process and the IPCC processes had been corrupted.
Another question that has been often asked was, why did James trust the BBC?
To put the interview into context the BBC had received a number of complaints regarding both the BBC’s coverage of Copenhagen and the coverage of the climategate emails. The BBC had seemed genuinely surprised by this response from the public and had even launched a review of how science in the media handled subjects like climate science, vaccines and GM.
The invitation that James received from the BBC to be involved in this program appeared to be very much in this context.
“As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.”
– BBC Producer to James Delingpole
James said that he had looked forward to this opportunity to discuss and present sceptical issues in the apparent spirit of the invitation.
The ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’
The BBC described the ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ as at the crux of the climategate email scandal. Why would they not at least allow a sceptic to voice to the public the sceptical viewpoint on this issue.
Paul Nurse (voice over): Tree rings have been shown to be a good way of measuring ancient temperatures, and they’ve mostly matched instrumental measurements since the advent of thermometers.
However, after about 1960, some tree ring data stopped fitting real temperatures so well. The cause of this isn’t known. When Dr Jones was asked by the World Meteorological Organisation to prepare a graph of how temperatures had changed over the last 1000 years, he had to decide how to deal with this divergence between the datasets.
He decided to use the direct measurements of temperature change from thermometers and instruments rather than indirect data from the tree rings, to cover the period from 1960. It was this data splicing, and his e-mail referring to it as a “trick” that formed the crux of Climategate.
Phil Jones: The Organisation wanted a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience. What we started off doing was the three series, with the instrumental temperatures on the end, clearly differentiated from the tree ring series. But they thought that was too complicated to explain to their audience.
So what we did was just to add them on, and bring them up to the present. And as I say, this was a World Meteorological Organisation statement. It had hardly any coverage in the media at the time, and had virtually no coverage for the next ten years, until the release of the e-mails. (transcript)
The program was supposed to deal with the failure of the presentation of uncertainties regarding climate science, the criticism is that climate science has presented to politicians a narrative of ‘unprecedented’ temperature rise which ‘must be due to humans.
Yet the ‘complication’ that is not explained clearly to the public or politicians, is that temperature proxies declined when modern thermometers showed warming. Even the simplest of politicians could grasp that if the proxies decline when thermometers show warming it reduces their credibility of recording historic temperatures.
Yet somehow it is deemed to complicated, this is a prime example of scientist becoming advocates for policy and presenting the issues as certain when they are not. Remember this was the described purpose of the program.
An interesting response to ‘hide the decline’
James Delingpole wrote in his blog about how the mathematician Simon Singh, the best selling author of ‘Fermat’s Last Theorum’ had tweeted:
Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate
Simon Singh wrote a rebuttal in his own blog, yet in the the comments there arose an excellent rebuttal to the programs description of ‘hide the decline’ from a respected scientist Paul Dennis who is also at the University of East Anglia
Paul Dennis said…
Before I add anything further to the debate I should say that I’m an Isotope Geochemist and Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. I’ve also contributed to and published a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the general field of palaoclimate studies.
I don’t say this because I think my views should carry any more weight. They shouldn’t. But they show there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area.
What concerns me about the hide the decline debate is that the divergence between tree ring width and temperature in the latter half of the 20th century points to possibly both a strong non-linear response and threshold type behaviour.
There is nothing particularly different about conditions in the latter half of the 20th century and earlier periods. The temperatures, certainly in the 1960’s, are similar, nutrient inputs may have changed a little and water stress may have been different in some regions but not of a level that has not ben recorded in the past.
Given this and the observed divergence one can’t have any confidence that such a response has not occurred in the past and before the modern instrumental record starting in about 1880.
Paul Dennis was thought by many newspapers to be the potential ‘whistleblower’ of the climategate emails. He commented a few times at Simon Singh’s blog and his identity was confirmed at Bishop Hill
Thus it could be said that on this particular issue at least and that the ‘science is not settled’ even at UEA!
The Conduct of the BBC
I last spoke to James Delingpole after the BBC4 program Meet The Sceptics had been aired that focussed on Christopher Monckton. James had also been involved in the making of this program and had got to know the makers well and trusted them. (from his blog)
“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.
“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”
Over the next few months I came to like and trust Murray. He was there filming Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Lord Leach and me when we debated at the Oxford Union. And he was there to capture our joy and surprise when we won – and to hang out drinking with us, afterwards, like he was our mate.
By this stage, we’d all come to accept that Murray was genuinely interested in presenting our case sympathetically. In fact, I must admit, I was really looking forward to seeing the finished product. “God this is going to be fantastic!” I thought. “At long bloody last, the BBC is going to do the right thing – and at feature length too.” – from James Delingpole’s blog
When I last spoke to him, James was genuinely angry and felt badly let down by the BBC. He had taken part in the making of both programmes in good faith, yet the BBC had basically said to the world in his view, that climate sceptics are deniers and an organised group of these deniers are responsible for stalling political action to ‘save the planet. It appears to me that this was the program makers intention all along.
I asked James if he felt concerned for his safety now, and he said absolutely that was a concern, following how sceptics were depicted in these programmes.
Prior to this program being aired apparently both people at the BBC and Paul Nurse spoke to the Guardian with comments that gives every reason for me to think the program was intended all along to present sceptics in a bad light.
I believe that in this type of BBC science program the public has an expectation that the BBC would present fairly both pro and sceptical arguments on the issues in enough detail to allow the public to take own view. If a respected main stream journalist can be treated like this by the BBC, what hope and expectations of being treated fairly should a member of the public or a blogger (like me – RealClimategate) have of the BBC?
The issue I have with this program and the BBC is not who is right or wrong in climate science, but the failure of the BBC to fairly present in the program the sceptical arguments in detail (which it must be fully aware of) with respect to climate science, the climategate emails and the inquiries to the general public.
I would like to leave the final words to James Delingpole that he said to me (and ones that he left in the comments at Bishop Hill) about why he participated in BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack program and trusted the producers of the BBC 4 program, Storyville – Meet the Sceptics.
Why shouldn’t one have faith in one’s national broadcaster to tell the other side of the story? – James Delingpole
Links/sources:
BBC Horizon -Science Under Attack – transcript
BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack – video (youtube)
The BBC email invitation to James Delingpole (my bold)
From: “Emma” [email address removed by author]
Date: 3 August 2010 19:25:08 GMT+01:00
To: James [email address removed by author]
Subject: BBC Horizon
Dear James
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you on this email address but I was given it by Louise Gray at the Telegraph.
I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.
The film will explore our current relationship with science, whether we as a society do and should trust it. It is being presented by the nominated President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse. If he is voted in later this summer he will be taking over the at RS at the end of the year at around the same time the film will be transmitted so it would very much launch his presidency. The premise will be ‘This is a turbulent time for science. After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.
The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions. On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves. Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.
Now obviously one of the other great areas of contention is when science meets the media. Much as most scientists would like their papers to be published unedited in the mainstream media that obviously does not work. We will be visiting the newsroom of a national newspaper (most likely the Times although we have also been talking to the Telegraph) to explore the realities of where science fits in the news agenda, but I also want to explore the equally important role of the online world.
As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.
Filming would be on the afternoon of 18 August ideally.
If you are interested please drop me a line or give me a call.
Kind regards
Emma [removed by author]
Producer/Director
BBC Vision Productions
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The BBC has a history of doing this. When they think ‘they know best’ they will set up an author or scientist or whatever, to be deliberately ridiculed. They will film 5 hrs of intense debate, and choose to screen the two minutes where you screw up and say something incorrect (or cannot give an answer).
This is exactly what the BBC did to Delingpole, while Nursey had the kid glove treatment and could say whatever rubbish he liked. It was pure propaganda, to spread the BBC’s Green beliefs. Pravda would have been proud of this Horizon episode. Joseph Goebels would have shed a tear in appreciation. The rest of us are disgusted that the BBC could have sunk so low, and Raymond Baxter will be turning in his grave.
They are truly the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
.
I can’t believe James was dumb enough to fall for this.
It was always going to be an ambush. He’s a scribbler – he knows the score.
The BBC is rotten to the core and James really should have known better.
Yeah I remember watching about 5 mins of the programme, seeing the direction it was going in and grabbing my laptop. Posting here on an earlier thread on how the BBC were shaping the debate. They say state owned television in egypt has bias on bbc news 24… I think the bbc isn’t exactly free from bias either ^_-
Let there be no doubt that the BBC is an acronym for the “British Brainwashing Corporation”! 😉
What can one expect from a country that, for some crazed hippie reason, made its own citizens the stars of the world’s most perverted version of that utterly stupid but depraved telly show called Big Brother.
What else to expect from the Big Brother Communists but for them to have forsaken the public’s right to the truth. After all it is all about money, especially for that rainy day fund come retirement.
A good post mr woods.
Nicely argued, Barry
Mike says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Nurse and Bindschadler meant net CO2 emissions. Many natural processes absorb CO2.
As for: “However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.”
Yes, that is how you are viewed by the scientific community. There’s no denying it.”
Just because the climate scienetists (oxymoron?) view those with valid sceptical viewpoints that way – does not mean that the scientific community per se is not sceptical of the advocasy that climate science has sadly become.
Mike says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm
As for: “However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.”
Yes, that is how you are viewed by the scientific community. There’s no denying it.
No.
That is how skeptics are viewed by the media when it is professing to be the spokesman for the scientific community.
No one speaks for the scientific community but the community itself. Since skepticism is an important attribute of this community, the skeptics speak for (especially in the GW discussion) the honesty, integrity, and openess of the discussion.
At least, the majority do – there are fanatics on both sides of every debate.
I am convinced that the BBC’s environment team (Richard Black, Roger Harrabin, etc) were oblivious to both of these programs content and had nothing to do with them. I’ve commented on Richard Black’s blog for a long time and I met Roger once at the Guardian Climategate meeting last year, I’m sure neither would be involved in such a cliched approach to scepticism.
The BBC would be wise in the future to sanity check programs made by independant producers with the BBC’s in-house environment team.
Doug in Seattle/ sfb
‘fool me once’ -don’t forget both programmes were ‘in the can’ before either was released.
‘James should have known better’
I think you have to re-read Barry’s article very thoroughly to realise the extreme lengths to which the combined forces of the BBC, the Guardian newspaper, the Royal Society and the boys at the University of East Anglia went to, to get James and ‘Christopher’.
As a mere ‘journo’ he will bounce back, if indeed he needs to, but the reputation of the ‘Scientific Establishment’ can never recover with Nurse at its head, and the BBC will just sink further into the nasty little cess pit which it is busy digging.
The time is long past due to produce a documentary/s about the BBC documentarians and their methods.
When our television broke in 1997, we didn’t replace it with another. What little television we see now is on the Internet or in the hotel while traveling. It really is not missed. Advertisers are wasting their money on the television networks.
Paul Nurse – President of the Royal Society – if he is interested in truth – will issue a press release apologizing for misleading the public on the amount of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere.
I doubt that he and his organization want to be internationally recognized as the boobs who made Baghdad Bob look reliable.
The BBC on climate change – are a lost cause.
Seriously how do the Skeptics keep falling for this. Its no different than when Menne took Anthony for a ride. These people believe they are in a fight to save the planet. Any evils they commit like presenting false are in their minds morally justified by the greater good. You cannot trust them, EVER!
OT:
Dr Andrew J Weaver allows himself to be introduced on the radio and in the media as one of the world’s leading climate scientists and Climatologist but his bio states he is a climate modeler?
I have a question about Dr Andrew J Weaver of the University of Victoria Canada. He has a PhD in Mathematics, is a Climate modeler and a IPPC reviewer. Where did he earn his Doctoral Degree as a Climatologist or in the field of Climatology. Does he even have a Climatology Ph.D. I can’t find any specific reference to Dr Andrew Weaver attending any institution or University that offers such courses or degrees in Climatology. He seems to holds many honoree degrees and titles – but these do not a Climatologist make, as far as I understand? Can somebody enlighten me, is he a qualified Climatologist or not? If not can one just claim that grand sounding title?
Thanks.
The bulk of environmental journalists are classic ideologues for whom the end justifies the means.
Anybody who does not understand this, and expects to be treated fairly by them, is being naive.
Has the BBC broken faith with the General Public?
Yes… years ago… so last century… so dumbed down…
The BBC are not Hiding Their Decline – they are broadcasting it for all to see 🙂
What should James Delingpole have done?
Refuse to particpate in the Horizon program, BBC’s flagship science program?
Especially after such a ‘nice’ letter to have a ‘chat’ with a nobel prize winner presenter, who is also the new President of the Royal Society! (/sarc off)
That would have been a good headline, we asked the sceptics but they were to scared to debate a ‘scientist’!
I think in the long run, the all to obvious endorsement by Professor Nurse of Jones and ‘hide the decline’ will be damaging to the reputation of the Royal Society. Look at Paul Dennis’ response to ‘hide the decline’
The BBC don’t seem to mind that they are alienating the intellectual classes with their transparent lying strategy. I think the theory is, the intellectual class of today doesn’t matter, it’s the next generation’s minds that matter. AGW BS is being drilled into UK kids heads I fear.
btw, alot of us deny the offical story of AIDS and vaccines. Who here has bothered to find out who peter duesberg is?
The programme was an absolute disgrace. Nobody who had the merest acquaintance witht he science behind the issues could have taken it seriously, yet sadly most folk have none.
Monckton and Delingpole were well stitched up but should have seen it coming. The BBC is a mightily pernicious influence in our society – and you don’t last very long there unless you are part of the groupthink
Mike says:-
Nurse and Bindschadler meant net CO2 emissions. Many natural processes absorb CO2.
As for: “However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.”
Yes, that is how you are viewed by the scientific community. There’s no denying it.
I view the scientific community with great skepticism and hope, this community is just the same as any other human community, it has its overblown ego’s, cheats, liars, zealots and is full of self interested groups, it also has people who are genuine, caring, at times brilliant, and offers hope for the future.
But when Science turns to predicting the future, and develops a consensus rather than a proof, it is invariably wrong! Credibility in this area is zero. History is littered with the wreckage of scientific consensus, from the Y2K computer bug theory back to the “creationist” theories of how the world came to be.
Down here in Australia we have the ABC (the A for Australian and the BC like the BC in BBC) who are pro-warmists like the BBC. Then we have SBS (the ethnic TV Station) – it’s also pro-warming. Then Channels 7,9 and 10 – all lefty based pro-warmists. We have a federal Labour govt (very socialistic) being pro-warmy and implementing a Carbon Tax in July at $20/ton. There are no TV stations that give sceptics (always called “Deniers” by the TV) a chance of even saying what the problems are with the warmists beliefs, so people in Australia are pretty much screwed. Power bills have risen about 15% a year over the last three years, and will rise 25% this year (excluding the rise that will be caused by the Carbon Price). I just hope and pray that either Channel 9 or 10 will start investigating the warmist cause and present the truth so that Australia can be saved from the Watermelons ….. “tell him he’s dreaming” – The Castle.
I had to post this from a Climate Depot headline.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer Mocks Gore: ‘OMG! ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING SNOWSTORM!!
‘Gore has caused the spread of more pseudo-scientific incompetence on the subject of global warming (I’m sorry — climate change) than any climate scientist could possibly have ever accomplished…No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness’
I have some expertise in PR and media relations and here is a primer on handling documentary producers.
Before the interview:
* Do not sign the release form/waiver until after the interview. Do not sign a release form that is a blanket release. Add in a line that limits your release to that day’s date and up to the current time of day. That prevents a subsequent ambush interview also being covered under the released.
* Carefully limit the length of the interview in writing when you agree to the appointment. I suggest a maximum of 30 minutes. No one is usually on camera for more than 90 seconds (if that) and 30 minutes is more than enough time for them to get what they want if they are being straightforward. Giving them more time just lets them go ‘fishing’ for some gaffe or misstatement. Don’t let them.
* Have someone there on your side who is going to be your watchdog. Get someone who doesn’t have trouble disagreeing with people and holding them to their word. They should be like your defense attorney.
* Ask for a specific list of questions in advance. Print it and have it with you.
* If they have any problems granting any of the above, you should take that as an almost certain sign that they are up to no good.
* Assume that they are recording the entire time they are in your presence, even if it appears the camera is off. Once they put a radio microphone on you, carefully manage when it is on and off. Turn it on and off yourself. A good tip is to actually clip it to the back of the chair you are sitting in instead of your belt. That way you can’t forget and wander off with it during a break.
* Try to negotiate the right to see the finished documentary before it is aired. Any producer will be reluctant, even if they are on the up and up because it’s more work. However, how they respond to this discussion can be telling. Point out that you’re not asking for any editorial input (which they would never agree to anyway), you just want to have some idea of what to expect before it airs.
* Remember that ALL professional documentary makers have already decided their angle on the story before they begin. Any claims to the contrary (such as “we’re just taking a neutral look at both sides”), should be taken as evidence that they are not being up front with you. Making a documentary is hard, time-consuming and expensive. They wouldn’t go to all that trouble and expense if they didn’t think they had an important and compelling angle on the story.
* Always research the people and the company making the documentary. When they first contact you ask lots of questions about who’s involved in production, who’s backing the project, which production companies are being used, where it will air, etc. Google all of this and follow the threads. Generally zebras don’t change their stripes.
* A few days before the interview ask who else they’ve already interviewed (to save costs they tend to group production sessions together). If you can, contact those people and ask how it went.
* Just as they are getting ready to roll, reach into your pocket and take out your own audio recorder (or cellphone with recording app) and turn it on saying “you don’t mind if I get this for my notes do you?”
* Doing video interviews is hard. Very hard. Coming across naturally and clearly is tough even for skilled news presenters and politicians. So if an interviewer wants to make you look bad, they have a head start if you’re a novice. This why I strongly suggest doing some practice sessions with a friend. Get out your camcorder, sit down interview style and go through a list of likely questions several times. Have your friend get tricky and try to mess you up. Have fun. Then make some popcorn and watch it. Make notes. Do it again. A little practice is better than none but a lot of practice is ideal.
During the Interview:
* Strictly hold them to the agreed length and remind them when they arrive and when the interview starts.
* Keep your answers very short and very focused. This can take practice because we all like to ramble on. Don’t! It never comes across well, even in a friendly interview.
* After they have asked each question, feel free to take a few moments to collect your thoughts before you start your answer. They will edit out the question anyway. Do not ever let them rush you. Do not ever engage in a rapid fire back and forth because this is where you are most likely to misspeak. Your watchdog friend should feel free to interrupt with “Let’s take a break” right in the middle of a question if they feel it’s appropriate. If you take a break, remember, mic off.
* If you feel like you are in the process of flubbing answer, immediately stop and say “that’s not correct, let me try starting over” and then just start over. Feel free to do this multiple times if necessary. If they try to use the start of your flubbed answer, it will look pretty bad for them when you release your audio recording showing they used something that they knew was “not correct”.
* If they surprise you with a question that you are unprepared to answer. Immediately stand up. The reason is that it can be a very effective technique to ask their “zinger” and let the shot hang on your uncomfortable expression. If you stand up, the camera shot is of your zipper – something they are unlikely to linger on for very long. Keep in mind that standing up is the only sure way to “scrub” an interview shot. Feel free to use it as often as needed. A good pretext can be reaching over to get your print out of the questions so you can note that this question wasn’t on there.
* If it is becoming clear that this is a hostile interview, don’t waste time making grand points that eloquently prove your case. If it’s good for your position, they simply won’t use it. This is like a legal deposition or police questioning. What you say can only be bad for you, never good.
* You may need to question the question if it’s of the “when did you stop beating your wife” category. This is perfectly acceptable to do. It’s your interview too. However, never have this kind of discussion with the mic on or in view of the camera. There is usually an additional shotgun mic on the camera that provides a less perfect but still usable audio feed if they choose. Also keep in mind that the interviewer’s radio mic can pick you up as well if they are within a few feet of you.
* If the interviewer keeps circling back and re-asking basically the same question in different ways, that means that he’s not happy with how your response is coming across. In a hostile situation this means you are doing very well! Now the key is to simply smile and “play broken record”. Keep repeating the exact same answer verbatim. Do not expand on it. Do not add to it. Nada. This might feel uncomfortable at first but just do it. They can’t use what they don’t have.
* When you feel that you’ve said what you want them to have then feel free to end the interview (even if the half-hour isn’t up). Just stand up, turn off the mic, grab your recorder, make some polite excuse and make like Elvis and leave the building. Let your watchdog observe them as they pack up and leave.
After the Interview:
* Before they leave, they may want to get what is called “B-Roll” footage of you walking about your environs. Whether you decide to grant this request or not will depend on how things have gone up to this point. If you are sure they are hostile or are unsure, then I suggest not granting this. It won’t help your position and it will give them lots of footage over which they can add their own narrative that will probably be damning to you.
* If they do turn out to be hostile to your position then, sadly, the best you can hope for is that they don’t use any of your interview at all. That means that they didn’t get anything from you that would help them make their case. Congratulations! That’s as close to a perfect score as you can hope for in this twisted game.
I hope that helps…
James Delingpole is great! I just love the dry, biting British snark in his writing!
He was royally screwed. Had he come up with a witty retort to Nurse’s medical “trap”, the retort would simply have been left on the cutting room floor.
I do have one general suggestion for James should he happen to read this: Change the picture on your blog, preferably to one were you are SMILING and don’t look like you’re smelling your own farts!!!
Doug Proctor says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“The circular logic of Phil Jones – to drop the mis-matching tree ring data for the recent past on the basis that the previous trends (before temperature data) of proxy data were valid, while the recent proxy data was invalid because it didn’t follow the temperature measurement trends is still not understood.”
That reasoning is typical of a highly confident bully or a total, raving lunatic. What really worries me is that the English government, most of the English people, and all of the English broadcast media are unwilling to question it. One can only conclude that they respect the power of the highly confident bully or they share in the lunacy.