Not sure if BBC journalist Carrie Gracie thought she was wrong-footing Lord Foulkes by answering his direct question with a direct answer, but I'm going to have to review some of my media training tips. I often throw that question at my interviewees to see how they handle it.
She definitely thinks about it before admitting to earning £92,000, then goes ahead anyway. Watching the footage again, I think the decision backfires and the interview ends at 1-0 to Lord Foulkes...
Via Press Gazette.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
"You're being paid a lot more for doing a lot less."
(Or add this post to:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Stumbleupon |
Reddit |
Yahoo)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The question is, what should or could she have said?
I'd have avoided the question while getting the audience onside, then batted back.
"I'm not the one under scrutiny here - and I can assure you that I didn't attempt to make the viewers clean out my moat. Do you think that's a valid use of money from the public purse?"
But then it's so much easier when it's not you.
Well, he just comes over as a dissembling grumpy old shit to me
Well, she does speak Mandarin/Cantonese. She gave a new dimension to the Olympics coverage.
Whatever her salary, she is doing her job. It is her job to "harass" MPs, it is her job to shine the spotlight of scrutiny... In asking her salary, he's just trying to squirm his way out of the situation in the way that ghastly public sector fat cats do. He said "you're being paid nearly twiceas much...".... £92,000... £64,000... I know I work with words but my maths isn't that bad.
Post a Comment