The friend who drew my attention to the interview between Jon Snow and Richmond MP, Zac Goldsmith, on Channel Four Newslast Friday called it a "masterclass".
Two days later I'm still asking myself "a masterclass in what?"
Let's recap the story that the interview was supposed to illuminate. Mr Goldsmith faces questions over his electoral spending following a joint Channel 4 News and Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigation. The Conservative MP said these allegations were "a nonsense".
But he began the interview by insisting he had not had the chance to respond to the allegations when the report was first aired on Thursday evening. Channel 4 News stands by the assertion that it first requested an interview with Mr Goldsmith one week before.
The article on their website provides the nuts and blots of the story without any of the fireworks that characterised the broadcast interview.
It's roughly 13 minutes long, but we're two thirds of the way through before Snow and Goldsmith settle down to discuss the findings of the investigation.
The preamble involves the two arguing over when and how Mr Goldsmith was approached for an interview, and the circumstances in which he agreed to one.
Mr Goldsmith refuses to discuss the issue of electoral expenses "until you acknowledge that when you stood and talked to the cameras and implied that I had bottled out of talking about these issues live on Channel 4".
"A complete travesty of the truth," counters Snow later in the exchange, before advising Goldsmith to take his complaint to OFCOM.
Eventually they settle to talking about placards, stickers and promotional jackets.
What does this add to the sum of our knowledge about the story in hand - or journalism?
To my mind it demonstrates:
- How to stick to your guns as an interviewer when you're put on the spot in a live interview.
- Why you must be utterly confident in the veracity of your story and the robustness of your basic journalism - keeping accurate notes of bids for interviews etc.
- How to steer an interviewee towards the subject you, not they, want to talk about, firmly and politely.
- Why (if you accept Snow's line that Zac Goldsmith's stand was a delaying tactic to avoid answering the question) it's necessary for producers to allow an interview more airtime than they anticipated.
That said, there are few things that niggle me:
- Was the subject simply too London-centric - more suited to a local radio debate than a national television news programme?
- Did it assume that viewers would understand the production process that led to Goldsmith's beef with Channel 4 more than most would? It was two people arguing shop.
- And therefore was its target audience medialand - rather than the general public?
In conclusion, there were no winners in the studio. And unless you're a journalist or a student of journalism the whole business was of limited interest. I wonder how many 'ordinary' viewers reached for the remote control long before Zac Goldsmith started answering Jon Snow's questions.
Jon Snow is the speaker at a BBC College of Journalism event at the Frontline Club tonight.
