Burning Injustices

[WTFH]

So the main question is - is asking award aggressive questions which you know is going to cause the interviewee problems for the sake of causing the interviewee problems great journalism or childish journalism?

If it's done to people you disagree with, it's great journalism - read the threads on here about interviews with Abbot & Corbyn (A clue will be if the post is written by someone who cannot spell Mr Corbyn's surname correctly).
If it's done to people you agree with, it's childish and proof that the BBC are left wing.

So, take your pick.

[SueEllen]

The Prime Minister is a role not a person - if he does not know what the role is supposed to achieve can I suggest he googles it?

The person currently holding that role is Theresa May.

So had he asked 'What is the point of Theresa May?' it would have been better - but that would have just exposed what he was trying to do with whole slant of the interview - e.g. fire award aggressive questions made to make Boris look bad.

So the main question is - is asking award aggressive questions which you know is going to cause the interviewee problems for the sake of causing the interviewee problems great journalism or childish journalism?

It's great journalism.

The likes of Tony Blair knew how to deal with journalists regardless of whether they liked him or not, and whether he was prepared or not.

Boris stumbled by not admitting he had just seen the Queen's speech in full and saying how he trusted his Prime Minister.

[The_Equalizer]

It's great journalism.

The likes of Tony Blair knew how to deal with journalists regardless of whether they liked him or not, and whether he was prepared or not.

Boris stumbled by not admitting he had just seen the Queen's speech in full and saying how he trusted his Prime Minister.

I'm not sure Tony Blair is a good example. My money is on the man being a psychopath.