Jeremy paxman fronted news night for many years and built his reputation as a forthright, nonsense interviewer who would not be intimidated by the position or power of those being interviewed. The first transcript an interview with MP George Galloway shows paxman as we expect him: accusatory, persistent and abrupt which leads to a heated exchange and Galloway storming off. The Parkinson interview depicts paxman in a very different light. He is on the receiving end of the questions and comes across as more affable, dropping his “take no prisoners” persona and revealing a far kinder man beneath the tough mask. Paxmans opening comment to Galloway is “are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in parliament”. …show more content…
Unlike the George Galloway interview he uses fillers such as um and uh. He also stutters. This indicates that he doesn’t know what to say as it is not scripted. Also at this point he doesn’t act tough and hard hearted. This shows his guilt and regret. He also shows his sense of panic as he wakes “up at 3 o clock” in the morning. It also reveals his inner human. He then says “quite often” twice. The repetition shows that it doesn’t happen only once it happens “quite often”. Galloway’s actions such as when he looks up at the ceiling, hand gestures and has his head in his hands shows his regret and sincerity. He shows his trauma and remorse as when he looks back he feels that he was too hard on “Charles Kennedy or whoever”. At this point he also squints his eye as if it is painful to remember. Also his tone drops when he says his name this shows his remorse. Paxman indirectly says he is sorry but equally he doesn’t say I am sorry he uses the word “trouble me” instead. He refers to Galloway when he says “they have a legitimacy I don’t”. This could possibly mean that he regrets the way he acted toward Galloway. Paxman then implicates that he doesn’t want to be feeling sorry for everyone when he says “I don’t want to get carried away”. This reveals that he thinks some people deserve it. Paxman indirectly describes himself when he says “nobody doesn’t make mistakes”. He doesn’t say I have made mistakes. He then follows on saying “you get the nuances wrong” he is again describing himself. Paxman then reveals that he lets people get away with the “half-truths” he then says “when you shouldn’t” this shows how he feels and why he doesn’t accept no for an answer. Paxman then shows his comedic side when he looks to the ceiling and adds in a silent joke “I thought he got deaf”. This shows his comedic side which he doesn’t say when he is interviewing people. Also he lies to act
Thatcher makes use of repetition at many different points throughout her writing. At one point starts a string of three different paragraphs with "others". In the 12th paragraph she starts every sentence with "Yet, he". The repetition helps her strengthen her eulogy about Ronald Regan.
The three videos that I observed are Case Social Worker, Addictions Therapists, and Child Find Specialist. The video I observed was the Case Social Worker the interview with Sue Dowling (Dowling, S). The video was about a interview was with Sue Dowling, who currently works with the Social Service Department in the Arlington Massachusetts area, and is an ongoing assessment social worker. Dowling noted in the interview that there are three phases in the Department of Social Services. The first phase is an intake or investigations. The second phase is the assessment. The third phase is the on-going assessment. The intake or investigation is an investigation of the complaint. When a social worker gets a complaint or issues they must conduct a 10 day investigation. During the beginning of the 10 days if the child is in an
Gary is a white male who was approximately 20-25 years old when he was filmed by a psychologist during a therapy session. During the interview, Gary’s body language described that he did not want to be there with the psychologist nor did his therapist try to engage him in any compassionate way. The overall feeling of the session was indifference on the therapist’s part, while Gary resisted all probing questions that the psychologist could muster. This is seen in Gary’s affect: his answers were not congruent with his demeanor. Both Gary and the therapist dysfunctional use of emotional masking keeps their feeling hid from one another. There were many talking points which the therapist could have built a relationship, but did not. Similarly, there were many tactics in which the therapist could have used, caring being one of them, but did not. Essentially, the therapist’s approach to Gary session left much to be desired.
The Defence counsel attempted to challenge the credibility and reliability of the Crown’s witness/police informant by alleging that the Crown’s witness left out significant portions from his criminal record when speaking to police. By challenging Crown’s witness, the Defence was brief and asked one question at a time, the questions were close-ended, simple and leading (i.e. “You would agree that it would be completely improbable to forget that you shot people?”) Moreover, the Defence built the questions factually so skilfully and smoothly that the ordinary witness may have been surprised that these questions will eventually lead to the discreditation of his/her credibility and reliability. This reminded me of the Cross-Examination principle “start safe and finish strong” which was discussed by Lee Steusser. However, the Crown’s witness/police informant appeared very well prepared and he seemed to have anticipated these questions, therefore he cited “trust issues” as a logical explanation on why he failed to disclose all of his criminal record to the police
One piece of evidence that supports this is when Laurence Yep says, “ I felt real love and assurance in that embrace.” This quote shows that Laurence Yep feels loved and accepted by his father and that he finally feels like his father is proud to have him as his son. Another piece of evidence that supports this is when Laurence Yep says, “I was walking when I realized he had said ‘our.’” This shows that Laurence feels like he is a part in his father’s life and was a vital part in his achievement. A final piece of evidence that supports this is when Laurence Yep says, “We remained in companionable silence.” This shows that Laurence Yep feels like his father’s companion and a vital part in this operation. Laurence Yep’s conflict supports my thesis because he had realized he is an important part in his father’s
Comedian Jon Stewart gives a speech on the Daily Show during the “Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear”. He wants the viewers of the Daily Show to realize the difference between the real and fake threats and to take a humorous perspective on most of America’s “problems”. Stewart also emphasizes to his audience not to take every person on the media by his word and not to overreact to everything they hear. He uses metaphors, comparisons, and hypothetical examples to get his point across.
In this paper, I will write a brief reflection over my interview with Professor David Christianson. I asked my professor fourteen questions, all question had different meanings and answers. I will start off my paper with some facts and advice which I received from my professor, my personal reflection on the facts, my personal reflection on the overall experience, and lastly, I will end my paper with the conclusion.
Chris McCandless lived a life in which he disgusted by human civilization, and left it, eventually being led to his death in Alaska. McCandless entered the Alaskan wilderness severely unprepared, a brutal error that cost him his life. In the novel, Into the Wild by John Krakauer, Chris glances into his mindset by they way of his journal, history, and analysis of his life reveals that Chris McCandless as an arrogant and judgemental narcissist, while not mentally unstable, had a condescending attitude towards society and perished not only from his reckless stupidity but also from his unparalleled ego. Chris McCandless was immune to love and had an obsession with nature and society, him showing characteristics that created the appearance of McCandless
Russell Brand has a newfound fame—not in Hollywood but in the political realm. Brand speaks very elegantly toward social issues, especially to an American ear. Taking command of any interview, he speaks quickly and clearly. However, as with most postmodern thinkers, his points and arguments seem to lack depth or critical consideration of the points made. In this article, Russell Brand comments on the recent events he was involved in at the GQ awards. His comments, entitled “Russell Brand and the GQ awards: 'It's amazing how absurd it seems,” were published in The Guardian. Brand defends himself and his actions because of the criticism he received at the awards and criticism that followed afterward.
...ugh the Persons Case gave women more rights, it still didn’t mean everyone was treated fairly. Some women were still unable to vote because of their race. In addition, after the appointment of Wilson to the Senate, the government appointed only a few women as senators. For example, in the 18 years Prime Minister Mackenzie King served in office, he appointed 67 senators. None of them were women. (T. Tyler, 2007). This shows that the victory of the Persons Case didn’t mean that women were always treated equally.
...h the “crackling and splintering in my shoulders that my body has not forgotten until hour” (32). He would never remember anything as it was, for it was now a distant and vague memory. But his torture was happening every day and every moment of his life.
Observing Figure 3, the leap in the number of women MPs elected to the House of Commons in the general election held the following year is blatant; this might be explained in part by the Labour policy regarding candidate
Mickelson, Sig. (1989). From whistle stop to sound bite: Four decades of politics and television. New York: Praeger.
This chapter is titled, “Emotions: Feeling, Thinking, and Communicating.” The court case this movie revolves around is based upon emotion not physical evidence. Joe Miller realizes his case isn’t about wrongful termination due to an unknown disease. His case is about homosexuality and the culture of fear it produces over the jury. Joe Miller began to seek a change from debilitative emotions to facilitative ones. Joe, Andrew, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom grew up in the culture I’ve previously mentioned. This culture brought upon debilitative emotions. Fear and mystery of the unknown led many to run, hide, or get rid of these feelings. Joe Miller brought this issue to the jury with success. He subsided there fear and allowed them to think more clearly, and have facilitative emotions. By exemplifying there fear, Joe Miller won the