"We recognise that viewers and listeners are too stupid to judge for themselves if an intervewee is lying or being evasive, so it essential that a responsible interviewer should interrupt promptly enough to ensure that the public never hear an answer which is unacceptable or which does not conform the interviewer's preconceptions or to his employer's collective prejudices" said a spokesman for the broadcasting media.
We tried to ask whether it would be fairer and more informative for the audience if interviewers were to allow interviewees to actually answer questions and to express their views, and then to interview someone else with opposing views if balance was required. Unfortunately we had barely began to speak before the spokesman shouted us down, saying "You really don't get it, do you? Why on Earth should you think that interviews are anything to do with informing the public or eliciting facts? Our programmes are gladatorial contests, pure enterainment, designed to let our presenters show off, to demonstrate how much and how loudly they can talk and how macho they are - especially our female interviewers."