Martin McGuinness on Paxman

shltter

Lemming wrote:

He's a politician. He is therefore in the public light and if he can't take a grilling from a journalist then he shouldn't be in "public service". He agreed to walk onto that program. He was probably given a list of possible topics to be asked questions on. He probably also agreed to that list. The words "heat" & "kitchen" spring to mind.

The short and curlies of it is quite simple Dub. He was unwilling to either give a "yes" or "no" answer, or to even explain the view on an answer not being so decisive as politicians are so fond of doing.

just on that i watched blair and browns press conference this morning and talk about not giving a straight answer
there is nothing new or exclusive to sinn fein about the inability to give a straight answer to a straight forward question

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

honestly i doubt it
I dont know for sure but given the direction that they have taken the republican movement as a whole it would probably be no bad thing if they were

mycroft

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

I'd also be mildly curious what their reaction to the performance in question would be if the interview subject was Mc Dowell, and Paxman was interviewing him about allegded links to a paramilitarial far right organisation* and he gave the same performance.

*the above is hypothetical.

Of course they are on the army council and as I have said before Im damn glad they are or god knows where we would be now. There are still many within Republicanism who favour the military approach and if it wasnt for Adams/McGuinness whos to say those types wouldnt be running the IRA today?

I'll say one thing for amen he's upfront and honest about his real beliefs unlike most of the republicans on this board.

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

honestly i doubt it
I dont know for sure but given the direction that they have taken the republican movement as a whole it would probably be no bad thing if they were

A nice vague answer - Martin would be proud of you.

cdebru

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

my guess would be they are on the army council or they have people on it they control
I dont expect them to be honest about it and admit it on the BBC to paxman obviously

shltter

Despatch wrote:

A nice vague answer - Martin would be proud of you.

ok just to make it a bit clearer

the question was

Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

answer

honestly I doubt it

I dont know for sure if i was to take a guess then yes i think they are but that is all it is a guess
if they are on the army council then it is probably not a bad thing

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

ok just to make it a bit clearer

the question was

answer

I dont know for sure if i was to take a guess then yes i think they are but that is all it is a guess
if they are on the army council then it is probably not a bad thing

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

what do you expect mcguinness to admit to being part of the leadership of an illegal organisation on live tv
pull out his membership card be realistic

really it is a stupid ****ing question we all know that irrespective of what the truth is he has to say no so what is the point in asking

BaZmO*

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

That's fair enough, if it's true. Still awaiting evidence.
However, using McGuinness's own answer to Paxman about the British goverment, if they lie about having to go to war (or the legality of it) then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

B.

AmenToThat

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

No ones asking you to, I mean I have no faith in Bertie Aherne or Micheal McDowell whatsoever so I dont vote for them. You can do likewise.

Despatch wrote:

After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

I know, youd wonder where Adams/McGuinness get the time what with trying to run an election campaign as well..................

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

what do you expect mcguinness to admit to being part of the leadership of an illegal organisation on live tv
pull out his membership card be realistic

really it is a stupid ****ing question we all know that irrespective of what the truth is he has to say no so what is the point in asking

Ok, I accept your point there. I just can't help but feel that it's a shame that there is no political party for republicans south of the border who don't want a private army as part of the deal. Please don't suggest Fianna Fail - all they want is a quiet life.

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Ok, I accept your point there. I just can't help but feel that it's a shame that there is no political party for republicans south of the border who don't want a private army as part of the deal. Please don't suggest Fianna Fail - all they want is a quiet life.

there might be soon

they might go away you know

Firewalkwithme

BaZmO* wrote:

That's fair enough, if it's true. Still awaiting evidence.
However, using McGuinness's own answer to Paxman about the British goverment, if they lie about having to go to war (or the legality of it) then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

B.

SF are trying to cast doubt on the quality of the British intelligence, a clever tactic I admit. Let's not forget though, that the Irish government also had intelligence from their own sources which confirms what the British are saying. Both governments had informers at the convention in Cavan where the council was elected so I really don't see where the doubt lies.

Firewalkwithme

AmenToThat wrote:

I know, youd wonder where Adams/McGuinness get the time what with trying to run an election campaign as well..................

It's probably the motivation of getting two paychecks at the end of the week that keeps them going.

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

there might be soon

they might go away you know

Here's hoping.

AmenToThat

Despatch wrote:

It's probably the motivation of getting two paychecks at the end of the week that keeps them going.

I think you might be mixing them up with FF representetives now!

Firewalkwithme

AmenToThat wrote:

I think you might be mixing them up with FF representetives now!

Never - everyone knows FF'ers only take cash

Hydroquinone

Despatch wrote:

SF are trying to cast doubt on the quality of the British intelligence, a clever tactic I admit.

Cast doubt in whose mind?
The elections are on in the UK next week. Since no one in Scotland, England or Wales can vote for a SF candidate, the only people watching that programme for whom Martin McGuiness's tactics and ipinions can possibly influence are the voters in Northern Ireland.
And to be fair, anyone who does vote in NI already knows what their own opinion is of Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein and of the quality of British Intelligence. They don't need to see him on Paxman; neither McGuinness nor Paxman said anything at all on that programme that could have been a new point of information to anyone at all in Northern Ireland.
It was a pointless exercise all round.

Cork

neither McGuinness nor Paxman said anything at all on that programme that could have been a new point of information to anyone at all in Northern Ireland.

That is the kernel of it all.

The NI electorate seems to have moved towards extremist partys like the DUP and SF. I am hoping aganist hope that the SDLP and Official unionists do well.

A vote for extremist partys is a vote for stale mate.

I watched Q + As on Monday night and I came away amazed at that mindset.

Is it any wonder NI politics is so poor. The "not an inch" mentality has nothing what so ever to do with building up trust in a society devided by bigotry.

MT

Cork wrote:

Is it any wonder NI politics is so poor. The "not an inch" mentality has nothing what so ever to do with building up trust in a society devided by bigotry.

So, depressingly true. That's why everyone should fear the rise of Sinn Fein in the Republic. If they manage to import the extremist tribalised politics of Northern Ireland down south then democracy will be the loser. Instead of elections based on how best to run the economy, reform the health service, education and all the socio-economic topics debated in real democracies, they'll indoctrinate the electorate with the tribal paranoia of the north. It'll be a confrontation a day with enemy - be it Unionists or the British. Instead of dealing with real issues, ministers will obsess over how they can get the north, how Unionists can be faced down. We'll have endless debates over how green we are - there'll be regular scapegoats accused of not being Irish enough. This goes on regularly in the North with both tribes engaging in a never ending game of who's the most British/Irish - delete as appropriate.

The last thing the stable, democratic Irish Republic needs is to be drawn into the Balkanised ethnic miasma of the North. Sinn Fein are the very vehicle on which that cancerous mindset will be imported. If you want liberal democracy to continue to prosper in the Republic the last thing you need is the ethnic entrepreneurs of Northern Europe’s very own Kosovo anywhere near the place – and that’s very much what Sinn Fein and the DUP are.

AmenToThat

Hydroquinone wrote:

neither McGuinness nor Paxman said anything at all on that programme that could have been a new point of information to anyone at all in Northern Ireland.
It was a pointless exercise all round.

Agreed but with the way Paxman apprached the interview it was always going to be that way.
No matter how much you may hate SF you cant blame Paxman acting like a twat on them as well!

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

Agreed but with the way Paxman apprached the interview it was always going to be that way.
No matter how much you may hate SF you cant blame Paxman acting like a twat on them as well!

Persistently asking a question in what he must have known would have been a vain attempt at getting an answer isn't being a twat.
paxman like other good interviewers does it to emphasise the "answer evasion" by whoever they are interviewing.

In this case, obviously he wasnt going to get the answer he wanted assuming Paxman believes Adams and Mcguinness are on the Army council.
Effectively what he was at was a subtle form of(in my view) editorial comment,ie Paxman was conveying what he probably believes in an indirect manner.

A Dub in Glasgo

Not very subtle in my opinion

He never is
But thats what you get with him
He wasnt very sweet with Blair either at the time of the Iraq war...(or since really but the pre war debates/interviews were "rottweillerish").
I'd like to see him interview Robert Mugabe.

To be honest,people in the public domain especially politicians should expect grillings and be able to handle them.

AmenToThat

Earthman wrote:

Effectively what he was at was a subtle form of(in my view) editorial comment,ie Paxman was conveying what he probably believes in an indirect manner.

It may well have been his ploy but with McGuinness's last comments before the interview was over he effectively left Paxman and his tactis dead in the water.

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

It may well have been his ploy but with McGuinness's last comments before the interview was over he effectively left Paxman and his tactis dead in the water.

So one parting cheap shot, justifies the rest of his (non) answers? :rolleyes:

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

It may well have been his ploy but with McGuinness's last comments before the interview was over he effectively left Paxman and his tactis dead in the water.

That is one way of looking at it,but remember,paxman has both editorial and presentation control on the programme.
If you take this interview as just one example of a "badgery" type debates that he has done and then look at a good few of the others you will often see paxman leaving the last word to the interviewee.

If you filter out the way you looked at that interview as a republican, you might see that paxman may have been happy enough with what he would have seen as the overall thrust of the interview and the impression it gave.

Often people with a particular view,or a mind already made up will pick bits of an interview rather than the whole, to say "aha!" our side won or lost on that.
Overviewing the thing often presents a different picture though.

cdebru

of course the same could apply to you

I think you have a point but i doubt there are few people here who do no have preconcieved ideas good or bad about mcguinness and co

so could any of us really give it that detached overview

AmenToThat

Earthman wrote:

Often people with a particular view,or a mind already made up will pick bits of an interview rather than the whole, to say "aha!" our side won or lost on that.
Overviewing the thing often presents a different picture though.

I can agree with that and I think we are getting away from actual substance of the politics of the dabate a little here (theres never a mod when you need one ) But I think the way McGuinness conducted the interview and refused to allow it to be on Paxmans terms and ended with a good line gave it to McGuinness clearly.
But as you say people of different political persuations will differ about the outcome.
As for a neutral I dont actually think they will be any the wiser as there was very little politics discussed!