Having been thoroughly entertained by Paxman's interviews with the three party leaders (which showcased Paxo's full range of brow raising, eye-rolling, cynicism and general gurning, not to mention delicious exclamations of: "You really have absolutely no idea, do you!"), which came hot on the heels of his sublime Newsnight weather forecasts (highlight: Wednesday: "Well it's April, what did you expect?") I felt inclined to broadcast my utter admiration for the great fellow. Run for PM Mr Paxman, by God i'd vote for you!!

Now i leave the floor open for others such as yourselves to eulogise at length, for i, indeed, have almost run out of superlatives to salute the treasure that is: Jeremy Paxman...

he's a caricature of himself - all the eye rolling, huffing and puffing is just showmanship and doesn't add anything to the interview. he knows he's not going to get a straight answer so why ask the same question over and over?

it was funny the first time but he takes himself more seriously than the politicians now.

He's a real character I like him. I occasionally watch University challenge for some of his excellent lines, "None of you can spell can you?! It's an utter disgrace!"

I saw his weather forecasts on Have I Got News For You last week, the one about it being April was superb!

He's a good writer to boot. I especially recomeend "The English". We've always been a nation of chavs according to him (and the dastardly French)

He`s a twat. Just like the Chris Morris interpretation of him on The Day Today.

thats a good book, but he wrote it back when he was a journalist.

He was doing Newsnight then too.

yeah, as a serious jounalist, before he became the paxman caricature he is now.

seriously, i saw the interviews he did with blair and howard and thought they were playground stuff, not serious interviewing.

I still like him. He's better than Jon Snow any day of the week.

Aaah... University Challenge, what a joy! Only the good old Beeb would broadcast a quiz-show where nobody watching ever knows the answers to the questions.
I have only ever known the answer to one, and that was about Pokemon...

Jesus, you should have seen the Kennedy one. Awful.

I am not at all convinced by Paxo, nor in fact, by any of the supposed "bulldogs" of our media. It's a convenient fiction to be honest, a pantomime if you will. Each Paxo/Humphreys/Snow *delete as appropriate* attack serves to confer upon the media the legitimacy of "The 4th Estate"/Democracies watchdogs which is utterly preposterous. The starting point[s] for debate are always a fiction. Noam Chomsky puts it rather nicely:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

I think that sums up my feelings about it all

Chris

that chomsky's got an answer for everything hasn't he?

To quote Chomsky:

"Yes."

I bet BF Skinner wished he'd thrown a few darts at Chomsky's picture a fair few times.

The trouble with Chomsky is, good an economist/philospher/socioanalyst as he may be, that he has the charisma of a decaying koala, i'm not saying that Paxo is a great interviewer in terms of getting the right answers (let's face it, politicians don't know the answers anyway and just make it up as they go along), what i'm saying is that Paxman makes bloody good tv - whereas Chomsky is about as fun as my dead grandmother!

Not sure what this has to do with it. You didn't really address the issue i raised [that's your right obviously, but charisma has fuck all to do with it] OK, in your defence, it may have lots to do with Paxo et al but charisma as a substitute for intellect or rigorous critique is a poor state of affairs - a fucking obvious one really, but poor none the less. Success story of the systemic problems with the media really. Hyping up an elite supporting, establishment Pantomime caricature as the ultimate watchdog of democratic values.

I seem to recall your eulogy at the beginning of this thread where you stated:

and



and also suggested:

So forgive me if I may have come to the conclusion that you were revering him in some way...perhaps as a defender of democratic values etc.
I just thought i'd chuck in my two penneth - with the help of Noam!

Chris

I didn't say he'd make a good PM, I just said i'd vote for him (or is that irrelevant too?) by god man/woman, i'm going to vote for Charles Kennedy, so don't you go around bandying suggestions that i have any voting integrity/democratic values, savvy? We will fight them on the beaches, that the waters... (that's enough of that ed.) (there, you see, i read too much Private Eye as well)

Anyway, Chomsky has a dafter name than Paxman so you can shove him were the sun don't shine and i'm not talking about Grimsby!

Chomskys a miserable git.

Paxman's a git. He's about as much of a real journalist as WWE is a real sport.

When i offered my first response I obvioulsy made a dreadful error. I imagined that it might spark some debate or discussion. However, it quickly descended into childish idiocy.


My mistake, sorry.

And where to begin with this?

I really have no idea, i'm not even sure what you're saying. "So don't you go bandying?? suggestions that I have any voting integrity/values. savvy" ???? Er...alright then....erm I won't. Savvy?? Do you have any idea wht you're talking about? Honestly matey, i'm at a loss. Check back over this thread, i just added my opinion with the help of a Chomsky quote...then you got all upset about him for some reason. Not once have you engaged in anything approaching a reasoned debate, and you never once discussed any points I raised.

Anyway, i refuse to play "kick the dog" any longer.

Chris

mistake number one!



mainly because using a chomsky quote is a surefire way of showing off that you've read the right books and accepted them uncritically. i agree with ronlogan on this - he's a miserable git. but also that argument you quoted holds no connection to reality - would you care to expand on it?

actually, don't bother - i think you took the thread a little too seriously, chris!

Yes it was a mistake to assume some debate wasn't it?



I'm not sure it's "showing off"...it just happened to provide a useful supporting quote. As seems fairly obvious, most of you have heard of Chomsky - even though you may not like him - so my quoting him in context with the thread seemed apposite.

this is certainly untrue. I am not a devoted nor unthinking "appostle" of his by any means....I could explain why but will resist.



Well, perhaps. My profile suggests that I am most active in the "Serious" section of this board....I am probably then most active in the "Media" section. So i obviously take the media seriously.

I do not mind the accusation of taking it too serously [I know this] I am sure it seems humourless at times. BUT the context is important isn't it...given that I often post - as already stated - in the serious and/or media section thought it might be OK to share my opinions, no matter how serious.



I tend to disagree entirely with that. I won't bang on but suffice to say, it was and is a reasonable argument to suggest that the media are generally uncritical of establishment or elite power and that Paxo et al provide the pantomime of critical debate.

Chris

i just think you rose to the bait a bit quickly, chris. you have every right to be serious but skiptotheend was just making a bit of a silly point about paxman.

as for chomsky, at the risk of entering into a fairly dull debate, he can be accused of stating the obvious - "the media are generally uncritical of establishment or elite power..." - thats because they are the establishment.

whats paxman going to do? lead the assault on the the palace of westminster? no, he's going to ask about health and the iraq war and immigration because thats what everyone is talking about in the election campaign.

i hope you do read and understand chomsky and you aren't an unthinking apostle but unfortunately a lot of the people who like to quote him accept what he says uncritically and use 'chomsky says' as an excuse for not thinking things through themselves.

Chomsky said you'd say that.

Firstly, no.
Secondly i was making a quasi-pseudological point on the nature of politics by not answering the questions, and thirdly what's the dog got to do with it, just let the poor bugger go.



Now hang on a minute, just who are you calling silly?

I still don't like John Snow. I want Paxo to smash his face in.

thank you, have you seen snow making a tit of himself on richard and Judy, Paxo would never do any crap like that!

Well again, that's maybe a fair point. BUT I didn't feel like there was any "bait" laid down really. I honestly just thought i'd responded to an initial Paxo love in, that's all. I didn't feel baited in particular. Critiquing [and getting angry] with the media is my job I really enjoy it....to be honest I love it. Posting on this particular website is often a joy and occasionally a "web" of debate. Just not this time I suppose. Well, it did become a debate but not about the thing i brought up.



In many ways that is true. However, it is often quite astonishing how few people realise this point. The fact that many of us NOW do realise this, is, in part, down to academics working in the field [Chomsky, Herman, Morley, Hall, Fiske etc etc] You're right Pots, they are the establishment but the media are still considered by many, to be the Guardians of our democracy. I am often critical of Noam's rather simplistic [trace the link style] neo Marxist, anti post-structural approach but he is sometimes also a useful "ally".

As for these words:

What can i say? But bravo. I almost entirely agree there. I meet many of these. In fact I had a debate with a Gramscian/Chomskian apostle at a conference just last week. Quote Chomsky as a substitute for thinking. It's infuriating but crucially not his [Chomsky's] fault is it? Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Stuart Hall and Edward Said are far more fruitful and appropriate allies for my own research/purposes. And i do understand him thanks...honestly

Chris

I prefer Gramscii the dog to Gramscii the author.

wadda?

(in a low growl) "you work it out"

what's that supposed to mean?

I can't beleeive you just said that

sooo... it's come to this has it...

he who laughs last laughs longest

do you believe in life after love?

that's a song...

shit!

".....Muthafuckrrrrrrrrrrr"

i cant remember any more... does that mean i lose?