This is a rule which applies to barristers, and is used in relation to cross examination.

There is an obvious difference between the two, quite apart from the wages. A barrister knows the parameters of his or her case, and seeks to gain answers which push that case in a certain direction. Hence the importance of not asking a question which might provoke an unhelpful answer.

A jourmalist wants to know what the subject is thinking, though. Surely that’s the whole point? Not to push your own agenda, to produce only answers which assist in helping you to make a certain case, because that’s not the point of the job.

There is a huge difference between what a barrister seeks and what a journalist seeks. The former looks for answers to fit an argument, the latter for answers to tell the whole story. A trial is a very blunt intrument with which to determine the truth, and an interview is a very unpredictable instrument through which to seek to build a pre-determined case.

If journalists only asked questions to which they knew the answers, there would be no real need for interviewees. A tempting idea, granted, but I’m not sure it’s the way to go…

I stand somewhere between you and Invers. The BBC coverage of athletics DOES need a shake-up if it is to hold on to the disappearing viewers. And at least Inverdale has kicked off a debate that could bring an end to shots of empty seats and terracing as Jan Smithowski of Outer Mongolia twirls in the discus circle and fouls.

Idowo’s triple jump coverage gave a hint of what can be achieved with the new technology. The replays in montage were extraordinary.

We both love and understand our athletics, but you have to accept that nine out of ten viewers do not know a Fosbury Flop from an Oerter Twirl. When and when not to talk is a gift given to few track and field commentators. Nobody knew their sport better than the late Ron Pickering, but even he was often guilty of saying too much.

The topic of when to talk to athletes during competition is nothing new. You are (you have to admit) old enough to remember the 68 Mexico Olympics when my old business partner Peter Lorenzo got roasted for sticking a mic in the faces of collapsing athletes and asking: “How do you feel …”

And at least Phil Jones is an improvement on Sally Gunnell … not that he has much to beat.

Hope you are selling books by the lorry load, Uncle Norman

Next you will be tell us the day after Friday is Saturday!

And Michael Phillips isn’t a real person? It’s a pseudonym? Whoa. Do tell when you confirm your speculations.

I wouldn’t mind a running track at St Andrews, preferably a wide one, and any other obstacles to obscure the goings on on the pitch.

cheers

Paul

Each year around the end of July I feel my blood boil at the ever increasing number of mediocre commentators / pundits that the BBC languishes upon the All England Club. Surely the likes of Michael Stich and John Macenroe as past winners will get in for free anyway? They don’t need a pseudo job with the BBC to cover their entrance fee. John Macenroe’s woeful 6 love 6 is just an excuse for cheap gags at his lack of UK geography knowledge.

Still I thought all that was over for another year until last weekend, then I saw the range of pointless ex athletics stars lined up by the BBC to cover the World Athletic Championships – how many has the BBC paid to go over there? What really irritates me is the unaccountable manner in which all of this money is spent on our behalf. Would the BBC’s sport coverage be any worse without these pundits? Why do high profile events require 3 or 4 in the studio (Is this to make up for their less than adequate presentation skills? Is there safety in numbers?). How can we start making the BBC more accountable? Will Barbara Slater make any difference?