Jeremy Paxman

Intro
Jeremy Paxman was an british broadcast who worked for the bbc for a number of years.
He is the interviewer in the chloe smith interview about finding out why the change to
the car tax rise was scrapped on the day it was supposed to be released. Paxmans job
is to be the interviewer and ask questions on why the the government has all of a
sudden decided to get rid of the car tax rise when they was so eager to have it in the
first place and, chloe smith is the interviewee who will answer questions on why they
came to the decision and try to settle unanswered questions.
Hard news
One example I could give that portrays this interview as hard news is the seating
positions paxman and chloe smith are in. We are looking at a rectangular table that is
set out diagonally with paxman sitting at the top and chloe sitting on the side. We could
argue that paxman is seen as a being more important and is of a higher status, This
meaning that chloe smith being on the side is less important. We see this often in
traditional nuclear families where the father would be at the end of the table as he is
seen as the head of the family. The way the interview is reflected through this kindve
layout suggests that it is hard news due to the statement of one person being higher
status than the other linking to serious matters. Another thing we can see that portrays
this is the fact that paxman has what seems to be a laptop and computer mouse and a
few papers in front of him which give him some sort of control and sense of direction as
he can refer to his notes and control the interview were as chloe doesnt have anything
in front of her ultimately being led by paxman through the interview meaning she has no
control over it.
One other example that can be used is the costume. Jeremy is suited up from head to
toe in a black suit with a red tie and chloe smith is wearing a pinkish coloured suit. Suits
are traditionally seen as being very serious and formal. Suits are often worn by
businessmen/women, so when the audience is watching the interview when they see
these suits they automatically assume that the interview is of a serious matter or
business. The suits relating to something of high importance is telling the viewer that the
matter is of importance without them thinking about it.
The set also gives a few puzzle pieces that the audience watching can put together to
clue what the interview is about. Behind the interviewer and the interviewee we can see
that there is a projected image of George Osborne who is the head of the treasury who
plays a leading role in what is done with the money the country owns. So by seeing this
we get the idea he may be apart of the subject matter. Another thing we see in the
projected images is a red briefcase which is referred to as the red box. This red box
also known as The Budget Box is the box that is used to carry important governmental

documents from one place to another. Annually this box is held outside number 11
downing street and contains the yearly budget plans. So by seeing this box we have the
idea that maybe the interview will be about some kind of change to taxes. The interview
room is lit with blue lights which could represents a couple of things, one being that the
party in power at the time was the conservative government who has unofficially been
represented with the colour blue, so the audience member may get a hint that it has
something to do with the government. The other reason the colour of the room could be
lit with a deep blue is the fact the show is called News Night which is aired in the
evening around when the moon has just risen and the colour of the sky is typically a
dark blue. Overall we can see that there are a number of things we can look at before
we even listen to the interview to get an idea of what the interview will be about.
Language
The language that jeremy uses in this interview may also indicate that this interview is
hardnews. Jeremy says which department is it going to come from? This question
exemplifies hard news as the word Department typically is referring to a smaller
division of a large organisation for example such as the treasury which is a smaller
group of people in the government who deal with taxes. The reason Paxman is asking
this question is because he is trying to gain information from Chloe about the
department the money will come out of, She is unable to answer this question clearly or
properly so as a viewer we raise our suspicion towards her as we are beginning to think
that she doesnt know what she is talking about or is hiding stuff from us. One of the first
things jeremy asks is when were you told of this change of plan? which once again his
purpose for asking this question is to gain as much information from the interviewee so
the audience can understand why the sudden change in car taxes. When jeremy asks
this question chloe begins to stutter and lose her ground a bit. She says I cant, I cant,
I cant and as an audience listening to this we begin to get very werey of what she is
saying and lose trust. As Jeremy asks more and more questions and he is unable to get
information out of her which kindve makes you think about jeremy's ability to gain
information as an interviewer as he has not got a single piece of information that we
wanted out of her.
Combative
In the jeremy paxman and chloe smith interview there is a sort of debate going on
between them, We get the sense its very combative. From the very start of the
interview we kind of get this idea that the interview will be very combative as they layout
in which they are sitting gives off a two sided vibe as they are sitting opposite each
other as if theyre opposing sides. We can also tell this by the way jeremy paxman is
repeating the questions he is asking Chloe a lot. For example Jeremy asks her When
was the decision taken? Jeremy is trying to find out when the call for tax was put off.
Chloe tries to avoid this question by telling Jeremy that the decision had been under
consideration, so Chloe doesn't actually give a straight answer to Jeremy which may
suggest she is trying to cover something up. This question is very short and I would

believe that you couldnt mistake it for meaning something else. So I believe the
question wouldve been effective but in this situation it seems that it was not as Jeremy
got none of the answers he wanted and he even had to change the question to become
even more specific to try and get a basic answer out of Chloe. By repeating the question
again and again in a demanding tone of voice and body language makes Jeremy seem
intimidating to Chloe Smith. The reason this makes the interview combative is because
Jeremy is in an intense battle with chloe to get the information he wants out of her.
Jeremy is unable to get the answer he wants from Chloe so tension builds higher and
higher between the two making it possibly awkward for Chloe as she may not know
what else to say since he keeps asking and she doesn't want to say the wrong thing as
she doesn't want to get fired.
During the interview Chloe Smith seems to be very unclear in the information she is
giving us and very unconfident in delivering it so when Jeremy questions her and once
again cannot get a clear answer out of her he becomes very agitated to Chloes lack of
cooperation with him. Towards the end of the interview Jeremy asks Chloe in a
rhetorical question Do you ever think youre incompetent due to his increased
frustration with Chloes limited response. He is being very rude and telling her that she
is useless. Although Chloe clearly didnt have many answers to give in response to his
questions Jeremy's overall technique in gathering information from Chloe wasnt very
effective at all.
Key / Developmental Questions
Throughout an interview an interviewer will often have a few Developmental questions
that will help them get the specific information from the interviewee that they wanted for
the interview. In this case Jeremy Paxman asked Chloe When were you told of this
change of plan? this is a developmental question because its straight to the point and
on topic and in some cases may establish what the interview is about. This is also a
developmental question as Jeremy will hopefully get the information he wants which will
help further develop the understanding of the situation. This often means the interviewer
might be able to ask more questions to get even more details. So in this example
Jeremy's hopes were to develop his understanding of why the treasury made the
decision to cancel the tax rise on vehicles. In this interview developmental questions are
very important as the whole reason the interview is happening is to inform people on the
situation and understand it a bit better, but in this case we can see that if an interviewee
does not answer these questions in the way you want the interview can not continue
One example of a Key question Jeremy uses in this interview is Can you tell us from
which departments that gap is going to be made up? What makes this a Key question
is that Jeremy is recapping the topic and trying to find out key information which is
ultimately why the viewers are watching to get these specific answers which makes it
important. This question isnt very effective as Jeremy wants to find out specifically

which departments it will come from but the only thing chloe tells him is that it will come
from departments that have underspent, jeremy then asks her Yes. Where? Jeremy is
becoming increasing specific so making it easy for Chloe to give a one worded
response instead she says the same answer just a revised version. If this was text book
Jeremy is asking the right questions to get the information that the audience has come
to hear but this isnt text book so it isnt very effective as Chloe does not co-operate with
Jeremy at all.
Summary
At the end of an interview the interviewer will summarise the information that they were
told by the interviewee for example at the end of the paxman interview he gives a
summary of what chloe told him We are clear that what you are looking for now is 500odd million pounds. You say that various government departments are under spending.
Jeremy has summarised what chloe has said over the course of the interview. This is
too wrap up the interview so it can end and also help remind people on what has been
said. This summary is good as it takes away the chance of Chloe answering one of
Jeremy's questions with the same information again in attempts to get her to present
some new information to us. It is also good because this would have been broadcasted
live and people who have arrived late or just flicking through the channels can get a
quick summary of what is going on and what we know. Along with this summary Jeremy
presumes that Chloe does know what departments are under spending but she is
choosing not to tell us, this makes the interview even more awkward than it already was
because if Jeremy was right Chloe has nowhere to run or hide so it becomes very
tense. This question is somewhat effective as Jeremy is asks her if it is correct in saying
that she is withholding information and she doesnt deny it at any expense. This gives
the audience some information about Chloe and makes us ponder whether we can trust
her in handling the U.Ks taxes.

Jonathan Ross
The Jonathan Ross interview with Tom Hardy is very promotional. Jonathan talks about
a variety of films that Tom Hardy has been in or will be in as he was a very small time
actor at the time who would be in low budget productions such as warrior and bronson.
The first time we see the promotional side of this interview is at the very start when
Jonathan introduces Tom to the stage where he talks about Toms ability to work hard
and change his physical appearance for his roles. At the start of an interview the
interviewer will introduce the interviewee to the audience or viewer to summarize what
they do and/or what they will be there to talk about to give them some back story on
who the person/people are for example in the Jonathan Ross interview he starts off by

saying "great to have you here Tom. Tom is famous for hanging his body to play roles
and I believe he gained two stone of muscle to play Charles Bronson And proceeds to
talk about what Tom has done and what he does. The purpose of Jonathan doing this is
to give information to the audience/viewer about Tom Hardy as many people who are
watching may not be aware of who he is or seen any projects he has been in. What
Jonathan has done is give us a brief description of what he is famous for and promote
him. This is our first example of Jonathan being promotional. He is promoting Toms film
in terms of an actor as in his speciality is if you need someone to play a muscle head in
a movie he is your go to guy. This is also an example of lighthearted and entertainment
when Jonathan says and his big challenge now is getting back to a tourt 10 and a half
stone to play me in the film hes making of my life . This is suppose to be a joke as
Jonathan is not 10 and a half stone and is inturn say that he is in more shape than Tom
Hardy. This is funny as he is making fun of himself. This is very lighthearted
conversation as there are jokes and making the audience laugh. These types of jokes
are also supposed to make Tom feel a little bit more relax.
Jonathans use of building confidence and rapport is seen throughout this interview and
is apparent when Jonathan introduces Hardy to the show for a second time and asks
the audience Shall we get my next guest out ladies and gentlemen?.. After, he says
this the crowd exclaims Yes and starts to clap and cheer. By doing this and getting this
reaction from the crowd this may help Hardy feel a little less nervous as he will feel that
the crowd wants him there and that they like him. At the time of this interview Jonathan
Ross was the only talk show host who would have two intros for his guests. This shows
that he is very big on building rapport with his guests, This is because Ross likes his
guests to feel warm and welcome on his show. The reason he probably does this is the
fact that Jonathan likes to have banter with his guests whether it be telling jokes or
poking fun of them without them taking it too seriously. So the whole point is to make
him more comfortable in the interview which will make him possibly more willing to
answer questions for Jonathan and allow Jonathan's use of jokes and insults be
acceptable throughout the interview without it becoming awkward.
The next promotional section is when Jonathan Ross talks about Bronson although he
talks about it in his intro, this is more him promoting Toms weight loss but, in this part
Ross talks about Bronson and the fact its a low budget movie I dont know if youve
seen Tom in Bronson, its a low budget movie but its a pretty small movie Jonathan
Ross loves movies and his wife is also a screenplay writer so he really appreciates
movies from large scale to small scale. Jonathan knows about Toms work in the small
scale/low budget movie Bronson so he decides to promote the movie since he thinks it
deserves a bigger audience. So by talking about it he is promoting the movie but also
Tom as an actor himself. Jonathan tries to build up Toms confidence when he tells
Hardy that he was really good in Bronson, he says you were tremendous in it this part

is promotional but it also will make Hardy feel good about the work he has done. It also
builds up a bit of rapport as Jonathan is telling Hardy that he enjoyed the work he has
done may make hardy like Jonathan for the compliments. However Hardy does talk
about the movie a little bit but he is on the show to promote another movie and not this
one so maybe he doesn't want to say too much because it might violate a contract he
has going on. Although I feel that Hardy takes a liking towards Jonathan as he seems
genuinely impressed by Toms acting. I feel like this was an effective thing to talk about
to build confidence with Tom Hardy as Jonathan doesn't go too indepth about the film
but talks about it enough to promote Tom as an actor.
During the interview Jonathan asks Tom what he is doing now and this is when we find
out that Hardy is filming for his next film he is going to act in which is Mad Max.
Jonathan most likely already knows this about Tom but is he is asking Whats the next
thing that youre doing? to give him the opportunity to tell the audience about what he is
doing and also to help the audience gain more information about Tom. Since Jonathan
is a lover of films he and many others would feel that the audience will want to know
about Mad Max since it is seen as a Cult Classic and since it is being remade they
would want to see it. Jonathan once again is already aware of this but he knows that by
asking about it Tom can give them some exclusive information about the movie. On
Jonathan's behalf it kindve fails as Tom doesnt really seem to know too much about the
movie himself, he doesn't seem happy to give any information away and wants to move
on quickly from what we can see.
The last bit of film promotion Jonathan Ross gives Tom Hardy is Ross asking Tom
before you go, whats this film the warrior or warriors youre making? Once again
Jonathan clearly knows about the film as he would have done research on Tom before
doing the interview especially about warriors since it falls into the research /
informational side of the interview but, by asking him this question in a really open way it
kindve gives Tom the freedom/chance to talk about the movie in depth if he wants in
which he does and Tom goes into the filming of the movie and tells us a few behind the
scenes stories. The purpose of Jonathan talking about this last film is the whole reason
Hardy came onto the show; to promote the film warriors. Usually when an actor comes
onto a tv show like jonathan rosss they talk about their recent film and maybe
something theyve done in the past but in this interview they spoke about a variety of
films that Hardy has been in and this might be because Hardy is a very small time actor
in this case since he has been in low budget film productions so Jonathan is giving
promotion to hardy to show how flexible he can be with his roles. Although it arguably
may seem a little rude that Jonathan seems like he threw the last promotion in as he
needed to do it but didnt have much time to talk about it is kindve clever to the extent
that they talk about it last and it would stick with the audience as it is the last thing
talked about said. This is also a wind-up when Jonathan says Tom before you go,

whats this film the warrior or warriors youre making? Jonathan has quickly changed
the topic to the last thing they will talk about, this is a quick and effective way to end the
interview as it is the reason Tom Hardy is on the show in the first place which was to
advertise the new movie Warrior he is in. Talking about this last gave Jonathan the
opportunity to get the audience to engage with Tom Hardy and promote him a bit and
then finally leaving the last thing the audience hear is about the movie. This is a good
way of laying out the interview because as it is the last thing they talk about the
audience will remember it easier than something that was spoken about in between the
interview
We can also identify a light hearted and entertainment style to the show particularly
when Jonathan talks about the football, he asks a multiple close question Are you
enjoying the world cup? Are you watching the football? Are you a football fan?. At the
time of this interview the world cup was happening and this is a time when usually even
people who are not big football fans take liking to the sport to maybe watch their
favourite team or their country's team play. Bringing this type of conversation up is very
light hearted but Jonathan also brings it up to kindve build up a rapport for tom and help
the audience relate to him as its very common for someone to like football but this
kindve backfires as Hardy doesnt have any interest in the football nor does he for the
world cup but regardless it is still light hearted talk. Although this failed it was a good
thing that Ross asks these multiple questions because if Ross only asked Are you
enjoying the world cup it would be more awkward for Tom to tell people he wasn't
interested in football as they all assume he would.
In an interview a wind up is what is typically done to move the interviewer along, so the
interviewer will summarize a topic or go onto a new one. For example during the
interview Jonathan says Ok, where are you from Tom, where is it because your accent
is quite hard to place? This is good because this gets Tom to tell us where hes from
and makes the audience pay attention to his accent a little bit more, this also helps tom
go into the fact that his accent is quite flexible therefore promoting him more to film
directors who are looking for an actor with that kindve flexibility. The reason for jonathan
doing this is to gain some more research of tom and find out where he is from
Another piece of evidence we can take from the interview is when Jonathan asks Tom
how he relieves stress during the making of his films where Tom replied with knitting
which is supposed to be a little bit of a joke as he doesnt seriously want to knit.
Jonathan asks Are you a knitter? to Hardy and the conversation is a bit funny and off
task. The randomness of the conversation and light hearted theme is supposed to help
build a rapport for actor Tom as well as build a bond between the audience and him.
This conversation shows light heartedness due to its random nature and off task
funniness. When Jonathan and Tom have gone off topic talking about knitting and then

Jonathan quickly ends the conversation by saying OK, so what are you working on?
Jonathan goes on to talk about a small film that Hardy is in called Bronson. This wind up
isnt very effective as Tom doesnt really want to talk about this movie as it is not the one
he has come onto the show to talk about. The whole reason Jonathan asks this is to be
information as he is getting Hardy to present us with information allowing us to better
get to know him and his works. Jonathan is a movie fanatic and most likely knows about
this film so he probably felt like this movie needed more promotion so purposefully
asked Tom this question knowing he was going to talk about it making him advertise it.
The last example of the Tom Hardy interview I will use to show that its light hearted
entertainment is when Jonathan mentions Toms teeth. Jonathan makes fun of Toms
teeth and says theyre wonky. Youre a good looking man, but youve got wonky teeth
but youre a good looking man Jonathan is making fun of Tom about his teeth but in this
case its not serious as Jonathan also doesnt have the bestest of teeth. This
conversation from the outside may seem very insulting but Tom and Jonathan get some
good light hearted talk talking about their teeth, they both seem to have built a rapport
towards each other as theyre conversation seems to be very fluid. Its also not so
serious as Jonathan mentions that theyve spoken about it before and its not something
he has just brought up to be mean. This whole conversation is poking fun of celebrities
who get their teeth straightened and whitened and by jonathan telling the audience that
hardy has bad teeth but he is still good looking is kindve telling the audience you dont
need good teeth as its fairly common for people's teeth to not be perfect this whole
conversation is very off topic from films and being an actor and jokey therefore
considered light hearted.
There are a few points in this interview that we can use to show the investigative side of
the interview. At a rather awkward point of the interview Jonathan asks Tom about his
old habits of drinking and taking drugs. This is something that is heard of but has not
really been voiced by Hardy himself. Jonathan says You had a period where you were
a little more social than perhaps sensible. Jonathan is trying to find more about Toms
old past with drinking and drunks as he is has recovered from it and Jonathan obviously
sees this as an achievement but the interview takes a slight awkward turning as Tom is
obviously embarrassed about it but kindve goes along about it because its apart of his
agreement to go onto the show to advertise. We can tell this interview gets awkward
because the subject is touchy as its something not everyone would be proud of and
also can tell from his body language and facial expressions that he isnt comfortable as
he was say when Jonathan introduced im
onto the stage for example, when jonathan
is talking about mad max and hardy's
accent hardy seems fairly relaxed and
enjoying himself as seen to the left

but as soon a jonathan mentions al

green and Hardys youthful party days
hardy seems to get a bit annoyed and
awkward as seen on the right. He asks
a long multiple question on a night out
with you, when you was less controlled, how would it have begun, how would it have
progressed Jonathan tries to build confidence is when Hardy and Him talk about
Hardy's early life where he used to take a lot of drugs and drink on a regular basis. This
part of the interview turns very emotional as this matter is serious and Hardy may not
want to talk about this as he may feel ashamed of what he had done. After they talk
about this Jonathan wraps it up by asking Hardy how long he has been sober for.
Jonathan already knows the answer to this as he has clearly done his research on this
part of Tom's life. When Tom answers that he has been sober for 7 years the audience
cheer for him and Jonathan congratulates him but Hardy turns awkward and doesnt
want people congratulating him for it. This use of confidence building was not effective
at all and it has almost created the opposite effect making hardy a little uncomfortable
and awkward.
Nichols - Bowling in colombia
A good example of Michael Moore being investigative is the first line he delivers which is
What do you grow here? As far as the viewer can tell Michael has gone straight into
topic investigating his interviewee which will give us as the viewer a clue to why Nichols
might be being interviewed. Nichols answer may be a little weird as he might not have
been prepared for the question or feels awkward in the interview since Moore's lack of
confidence building too his interviewee through the use of an introduction. This is also
when we see the first piece of evidence to show you that this interview can be
lighthearted is when Moore discusses with Nichols about his farm saying No
Herbicides, No pesticides. None of that stuff. Telling us that his crops are organic and
also may be trying to make us believe he has no chemicals that could allow him to
make a bomb. Michael replies to James saying Yeah, better talking about how this
makes the crops better and healthier. This is almost like Moore building up a rapport
with James since they have found some common ground agreeing with how James
grows his crops.

Michael has been investigative by showing a montage with a voice over displaying the
backstory of Nicholss case, in order for audiences to now fully understand why he may
have an opinion or view on the subject. During this Moore says Feds didnt have the
goods on James This piece of dialogue is very suggestive and heavily implies that
Nichols was definitely involved with the bombing but police didnt have enough evidence
(the goods) to put him in prison. The reason we are shown these clips is because
without them we would have no suspicion of him doing any wrong doing. We would just
think he is eccentric not thinking he is guilty.
After this montage it cuts to Moore standing with Nichols outside his farm house.
Michael asks him did timothy mcveigh ever stay here? This is Moore being even more
investigative, the reason he is asking this question is to maybe find out if Nichols is still
affiliated with the people who were involved in the bombings which makes Nichols look
even more guilty if he was, this too was also suggestive as Michael is trying to find out
how Nichols lived with someone for so long who was making bombs and had no idea
what was going on. This makes him seem very suspicious as this kindve thing wouldnt
happen under your nose in your household.. Michael then begins to ask other questions
like So they didnt find anything on this farm? and Any kind of explosives Moore is
being very nosey and being very straight to the point. He almost doesnt care about how
the interviewee is feeling compared to someone like Jonathan Ross who will try to make
someone feel comfortable so they will be more than likely to answer questions for him.
The whole point of Michael asking this questions is to find out if there is any evidence
that could make nichols suspicious of being involved in the bombing. Nichols tells
Moore that there is nothing dangerous. We start to think that Nichols is a little mad and
very guilty since he is being very defensive due to Michael answering these questions
but the reason he might be acting slightly unusual is the fact that Moore is being very
nosey and asking some distressing questions so Moore could be feeling very awkward.
Another part of the interview were Moore is being investigative is when he starts to ask
Nichols about the bombings that took place and his opinion on whether it was right or
not. Do you believe it was right to blow up the building in Oklahoma City?. When
moore asks this the lighthearted part of the interview ends and it becomes quiet
emotional due to the topic change. This part of the interview can be suggestive as
Nichols will gives his opinion and he tells us its wrong but some people may believe
that he is just saying that because he was on camera. Too some people this part of the
interview may make them think that Nichols is not guilty as he clearly has his own moral
values but due to the previous contents of the interview for example when we feel he is
covering stuff up we may feel that he is just saying this to seem normal.
The next investigative part is when Moore questions Nichols on the equipment he keeps
on his farm and what he uses those items for. Moore asks You think its right that you

have the right to have nuclear grade plutonium here on the farm? Moore is trying to get
Nicholss opinion as this once again can be interpretive and help the audience
determine whether we think he is innocent or not.
Later in the interview we see another example of the lighthearted style when Michael
and Nichols start talking about keeping guns for their own protection. Nichols tells
Moore I sleep with a 44. Magnum under my pillow. In which Michael states that
Everyone says that. Moore says this as it is a little crazy and ridiculous for someone to
actually have a gun under their pillow and someone would probably think that the
person is a crackpot. This part of the interview is very suggestive as it seems to be a
random piece of footage put in the cut without any context to why he is telling us this.
For all we know Michael off camera could have been edging Nichols to talk more about
guns provoking him to say something like this. The interview has been edited to make
Nichols look a little mad which in turn makes him look very guilty in terms of the
bombings. By editing this interview it is successful in making Nichols look eccentric but
even still it is completely interpretive.
The first use of a sound bite in this interview is when Nichols says If the people find
out.., and then carries on. This makes Nichols sound rather crazy. This line is very
relatable to the audience as this sounds like he is a conspiracy theorist who are often
seen as mentally unstable people with tin foil hats on. This sound bite has been
deliberately edited this way as it almost makes it out that Nichols has said this out of the
blue making him look bad when in reality Moore probably asked him a question and
then he answered but Moore just cut the clip.
The next use of a soundbite in the interview is when Nichols is talking about the
government and he says When a government and carries on, Nichols starts talking
about the government and tells the Nichols that the government probably has
something to do with the bombing that happened. He goes on to tell Nichols that we
need to overthrow the government and rise up. Once again Moore has edited so we
have no real context to why he is saying it which makes him sound a crazy.
The last use of a soundbite is when Moore says Why not use Gandhis way? when
Moore says this he is saying to Nichols that there are other options to solve a situation
other than putting gun in hand. By saying this it makes Nichols looks a bit stupid as he
replies telling us that he is not aware of that method. This in turn makes us as the
viewer feel like he is a bit stupid and cannot be trusted.
Marilyn Manson

The Marilyn Manson interview starts off with a series of sound bites featuring a variety
of people talking about the possible things that could have influenced children into
becoming Little monsters. The last few sound bites are people saying Marilyn
Manson and then to a news anchor who is telling us how he is one of the mainstream
artists who are to blame for promoting violence. The news anchor includes a quote
from Manson saying Marilyn Manson have cancelled the last five days of his US tour
but, singers like himself says that artists like himself are not to blame This could be
seen as promotional for Manson as theyve included a quote of his which puts him in
good light. This seems to be very interpretive and informational so far as there is
information from both sides of the argument and it leaves us as the viewers to judge
and think whether we think he and artists like him are to blame. We could also say that
this is emotional because there is mentions of Manson canceling the last 5 days of his
tour in the U.S out of respect to the people who were lost in littleton. This once again
puts Manson in goodlight.
The next part to this interview is where Moore starts to become investigative. A voice
over plays with Moore saying There were protests from the religious right but, it thought
Id go talk to him myself This is Moore going out to investigate for himself whether he
should be partly blamed for the recent acts of violence and Marilyn's own opinions on it.
This is Moore doing his research since up until now all his research would probably
have been from the internet and news articles, which would be very bias, so this is
Moore doing more research and also being informational to the audience since we have
gained knowledge about the protests against manson from religious groups.
The next part in the interview has been cleverly edited as we can see Moore has edited
manson and the religious right group to cut between each other, almost as if one of
them gives an opinion and then the other gives theirs. For example Manson says I
definitely can see why they would pick me because I think its easy to throw my face on
a tv because im in the end a poster boy for fear it then cuts to the religious right's
activist group saying If Marilyn manson can walk into our town and promote hate,
violence, suicide, death, drug use and columbine-like behaviour Moore has chosen
to edit the footage in this way because it shows the two sides of the story and the
juxtaposition between the two, it also makes the confliction between the two even more
visible as they have been played one after the other. In the Manson clip we can see he
has a calm tone of voice and very relaxed body language whereas in the next clip
featuring the Religious right's activist group its a different. The spokesman has an
aggressive tone and is almost shouting and pointing his finger at some points. Overall
we can see that this part of the interview is supposed to be interpretive as both of the
sides have had their say and now it's up to the viewer to make up their own opinion with
the information given.

In this next part of the interview we find a Key question. Moore says Do you know that
the day that columbine happened the united states dropped more bombs on Kosovo
than any other time during that war? This question can be seen as suggestive to
Manson since he may not have heard about this and its being stated as fact which
michael could have just made up. Manson seems to have plenty of knowledge of the
subject though which makes the interview slightly promotional for Marilyn due to people
get to know him and what he is like as a person from his answers he gives in turn
possibly making people think that he isnt the cause for the violence and hatred. This
part of the interview is another example to the interview being interpretive, it also is an
example of Moore having done his research as we can see from the facts he gives us.
In the next part of this Manson gives us an overall on his thoughts and feelings towards
people blaming him for what happened in Columbine. Manson ideology on the whole
subject is that the government and media are spinning the news trying to scare us and
shock us so we consume products, what he said wasYoure watching television and the
news, youre being pumped full of fear then cut to commercial.. buy the Colgate, if
you have bad breath they wont talk to you The whole idea that, keep everyone
afraid, and theyll consume The part of the interview is interpretive once again as we
hear more opinion from Manson leaving us to either agree or disagree with what he
says. Moore has been successful so far in this interview as he has gotten a lot of
information out of Marilyn and the purpose of this is to get more research.
In the last part of this interview Michael asks another Key questions which is If you
were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people of that community, what
would you say to them? This is Moore pushing for more opinions off of manson so this
is a good example of him being informational. Marilyn Manson's reply to Michael's
question is I wouldnt say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say
and thats what no one did. Once Moore has the answer from Manson this part
becomes once again interpretive as he gives his opinion but it can also be seen as
emotional, suggestive and promotional for manson as by him being someone who
wants to listen to what they have to say makes him look like a very kind and endearing
person to which may persuade people more to the side that he has no reason to do with
what happened in columbine.

HESTON
This interview starts off after a clip of Moore going up Heston's drive way and talking to
him over the intercom arranging an interview for the next day. Michael has edited this
clip with some lighthearted music as the clip is almost sarcastic and humorous as we
awkwardly watch Moore walk up Heston's driveway unannounced, this also may

represent what is known as the Calm before the storm as later on the interview gets a
bit emotional. The next day Moore meets Heston at his home and is taken to Hestons
pool house. Moore starts the official interview off by telling Heston that he is a lifelong
member of the National Rifle Association I told him I was a lifetime member of the
NRA, this is to gain hestons trust and also make him feel more comfortable which in
turn will possibly make him answer the questions Moore gives him.
An investigative part of this interview is when moore is talking about other countries and
their guns laws. He compares them to the united states telling us that they have a much
lower ratio in murders they have. He says Canada is a nation of hunters, millions of
guns and yet, they had just a few murders last year. Moore says this in a slower and
lower tone of voice comparatively to other things he says which might be quick and
somewhat witty which makes the interview turn emotional. Heston winds-up the
interview here by giving a short response to help move on to the next question. By
doing this we can tell that Heston doesnt like the question and shows his attitude
towards the overall situation.
The Heston interview becomes combative a short while after the interview has begun.
Moore says You dont have any opinion, Moore says this in a kindve agitated way as
he is angry that heston will not give a response. This line also also rude due to the tone
of voice Michael used when delivering it.
During the interview Heston brings up the fact that america being a country with mixed
ethnicities could be a reason to why the country has more gun crime. Moore responds
to this with What do you mean, you think its a mixed ethnicity. Moore has picked up
on what Heston has said and it's sounds quite racist so Moore is calling him out and
delving deeper into what he meant by this.it becomes quite awkward here as Heston
trys to change the focus of the interview off of him and on to moore by questioning what
he said I don't know that that's true, but, uh... he states that he doesn't know that other
countries have a lower gun murder rate is true or not, so he tries to make Moore doubt himself
and forget what heston said. Heston also seems very unconfident with himself since he pauses
and says uh.. and its also as if he is being careful to what he is saying now so he doesn't
come off as racist.

A wind-up is a point in the interview when someone will conclude a point and then
quickly change subject to move the interview on. Our first example of this in the Moore
and Heston interview is when Heston says Well, its an interesting point, which can be
explored and youre good to explore it at great lengths, but i think thats about all i have to say
on it he has concluded the discussion almost summarising it and tells Moore that he has
nothing else to say on it so lets move on. This is heston being quite blunt and probably getting a
little angry at this point since Moore had previously been asking him the same question trying to
get a specific response but heston couldnt answer in the way he wanted to. He is being pretty

upfront as he is being brutally honest and tells Moore that hes not going to answer it so move
on.
The last wind up in this interview is when moore says Mr Heston, just one more thing This is
an effective wind-up as it may make some interviewees more willing to answer the question as
they know it's the last one and once they get it over with they can leave. In this case Moore is
holding a picture of the little 6 year old girl who got shot by another 6 year old in school. The
purpose of Moore doing this is to have an emotional turn on the interview. It is also supposed to
make Heston feel bad and rethink his ideology of guns because these are something he loves
so much and promotes but Moore is showing how bad guns are and the chaos it is causing.
Moore also asks if Heston wants to apologise for bringing his NRA gun rally to the same state
as the girl who got shot by a gun and Heston seems to be outraged and leave the interview. The
reason Moore left this part of the interview until last is because he knew it was a very emotional
and touchy subject and he was probably aware that Heston would walk out of the interview so
by doing it last he can ask heston all the questions he wants and get all the answers before then
showing him the picture and asking him if he would apologise.
There are a few parts in this interview where Moore asks or answers Heston's question with a
direct question. An example of this is when Heston is talking about American history and how
they have had a lot of blood on their hands so Moore replies to this with And Germany's history
doesnt? No. And British history? Moore has done his research on this topic and probably just
has general knowledge on the subject. The reason Moore replies in this way is he is sort of
trying to make Heston open his eyes and tell him that Germany has a history of killing people
and so did the British empire but you dont see these countries nowadays with high rates of gun
murders. He is trying to stop Heston from using the petty excuse of weve always done this and
this is how its always going to be.
The next direct question in this interview is when Heston is telling Moore that he was completely
unaware of the girl who got killed in Flint by the 6 year old boy. Moore directly asks Heston You
didnt know at the time, that this killing had happened? Moore is questioning Heston and says it
in a way that almost sounds like Heston shouldve known it happened as it was a major event in
the news and especially since it was to do with guns.
Moore's approach to this interview was to try and open up Heston's eyes to the serious nature
of gun laws in america. Moore did this by using the power of emotion to make him feel guilty.
Especially when he questions why heston would bring a rally that celebrates guns to a state
where an innocent 6 year old girl who had barely seen life had her life taken away by another
innocent year old boy who didnt know any better shot her with a gun. Moore's approach to
making Heston feel guilty and maybe question himself about his love guns was successful but I
believe overall the approach to the interview didnt allow Moore to get as many responses as he
wanted.
Overall in all of these interviews I have covered there are many differences and similarities
between them. For example Jonathan Ross interview and The Michael Moore bowling for

columbine interview are similar in the fact that they used Elliptical editing. They filmed the
content of the interview and then edited it to almost persuade the audience or make the
audience see a particular side of someone for example when Moore uses it to make James
Nichols to be a crazy man. We can compare these two interviews to an interview such as
Jeremy Paxman's Interview with Chloe Smith. This interview was filmed on live TV with the only
edits being in camera meaning that they can change the angle of the camera but not cut pieces
of footage out as it was live so what ever happened you saw. This is because this interview is a
more series interview and its about getting the facts out and for people to make their own
decision on it whereas the Jonathan Ross Tom Hardy interview is supposed to be entertaining
and all the boring bits are taking out. I can conclude that there are a variety of different
approaches to interviewing someone and there are somethings that suit a particular style and
some dont so you have to carefully plan what you want your interview to provide, whether it be
basic knowledge on a certain subject or to entertain someone with humour and jokes to make it
work.