The Case of Vilification: An Analysis of the Whole Interview

Jeremy Farnham and the Purpose Russell Brand, one of the most renowned essayists came to BBC News night for publicizing his work on personal and political event and got interviewed by Jeremy Paxman who is a journalist well recognized for incredible combative way of interviewing people (Arthurs and Shaw 2016). The purpose of this confrontation was to manage the conflict between the two classes of the society that is the rich and the poor class of the society through bringing an initial revolutionary change within the existing system as addressed in the

Running head: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Discussion..................................................................................................................................2
Participants and the Purpose..................................................................................................2
Analysis of the Whole Interview............................................................................................3
Evidence of Vilification.........................................................................................................4
Instance of Threatening..........................................................................................................4
Relying on Personal View......................................................................................................4
Evaluation of Interview and Recommendation......................................................................5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................7

2CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Introduction
This paper aims to observe minutely and critically analyse the whole procedure of the
interview held on 23rd October 2013 BBC News night where Brand Russell (Brassett 2016)
faced the interview with Jeremy Paxman (Wheelwright 2013). In the following section of the
paper the purpose of the participants, the stories they were telling and the kinds of opinions as
well as acts they were doing are analysed in respect to the conflict creation and management.
An attempt is made to identify whether any specific acts of vilification and threatening taken
place or not as well as the reason behind that. Further the aspects where, the participants were
relying on the opinions more than the actual concerned facts. Finally, an appraisal of the
whole interview procedure is made and some suggestions are given about the way the
participants could have managed themselves well and make the interview more effective one
with desired result.
Discussion
Participants and the Purpose
Russell Brand, one of the most renowned essayists came to BBC News night for
publicizing his work on personal and political event and got interviewed by Jeremy Paxman
who is a journalist well recognized for incredible combative way of interviewing people
(Arthurs and Shaw 2016).
At the beginning, the purpose of the interview was to talk about the issues discussed
in the essay of Brand where he expressed his protest against the exploitation of both the
wretched people and the environment because of the selfish desire of the elite class people
and the exploitation. He asks for bringing change in respect to political and economic
measures to ensure a more sustainable future. The purpose of this confrontation was to

3CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
manage the conflict between the two classes of the society that is the rich and the poor class
of the society through bringing an initial revolutionary change within the existing system as
addressed in the writing of Brand. However, both of them caused the conflict because of their
contradictory conducts and approach to each other with the gradual progress.
Analysis of the Whole Interview
The nature of the whole interview between the participants was formal as well as
combative in nature. This combative approach took place from the very starting where
Jeremy challenged Brand for his call for revolution and argued that anyone who had never
given any vote should not have the right or go for editing a political magazine.
Story Discussed in the Interview: The participants are discussing about the faults of
existing political system and the apathetic approach of the new generation to the present well-
established government system of U.K. Here Brand dishonoured the British political system,
referred it as ineffectual to bring the desired change to the society, and suggested that the
existing electorates of the U.K should not vote like him. Brand suggests that the present
situation of the society with huge disparity between the poor and the rich people resulting
from the unequal distribution of wealth between the people and the indifference or ignorance
of the governmental body. Brand calls for the immediate revolutionary changes to come. In
response to the Brand’s comment when Jeremy asked him about the kind of schemes, he
wants to bring the desired changes. Jeremy replied that to bring the changes people must
initiate the socialist egalitarian system. They must ensure the massive redistribution of the
wealth of the nation, the heavy taxation of the corporation causing the harm to the society in
specific and the environment in general and ensuring the massive social responsibility of the
elite class or any companies exploiting the environment. Jeremy also suggested that the very
concept of profit making should be abolished because it will generate the deficit. According
to him the present system, don’t address these aspects with practicing the treachery,

4CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
deceiving as well as lying the people and thus the system ignoring and exploiting the poor
people through empowering the elite class. Since the existing system of democracy should be
eliminated (SUBLENKO - Website & Mobile Development Farnham Surrey, 2019).
Evidence of Vilification
Brand tried to hurt Jeremy and his reputation through making the insulting comment
that he has spent his whole career only by scolding and criticizing the politicians. He said that
there is no point to remain around them when someone calling it worthless. Jeremy also
insulted Brand through calling him a trivial man and making comment on his previous
profession as well as questioning on his right to talk about the politics that had never given
vote and called him as an actor.
Instance of Threatening
There is the evidence of threatening in Paxman’s combative style of questioning about
what gives the right to Brand who is so specific and never followed the political norms
through abstaining from voting to edit a political magazine as well as express the related
views. It is appearing that he is threatening Brand, that the person like him does not possess
the right to talk about political issues who even does not provide vote.
Relying on Personal View
Brand suggested that the existing system should be abolished with egalitarian
approach through ensuring the massive distribution of wealth, massive taxation and making
the corporations more responsible for the welfare of the society and the environment (Heater
2013). Here he has forgotten to consider that for charging the tax and to control the
operations of the companies being socially responsible there must be an elite body like the
government (Acemoglu, Reed and Robinson 2013). He suggested that the idea of profit
making is filthy it should be removed but he has ignored the point that the is the fact that

5CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
encourages to make effort and produce without it people will not give their effort or be
motivated to work (Young 2013). His idea of equal wealth and power distribution is also
another aspect which is difficult to bring because different work require different level of
contribution as well as produce different value. Since equal distribution is not easy to ensure
(Achdou et al. 2017). Brand should not suggest the young generation not to vote (Barlett
2013). Thus, Brand focussed on his own point of view without considering issues
pragmatically.
Evaluation of Interview and Recommendation
From the very beginning, the interview was very combative in nature. Both of the
interviewee and the interviewer were ready to be engaged in argument, which results in the
cold fight between them. Both Jeremy and Brand came with different kinds of point of view
with their distinctive political dimensions. Jeremy is recognized for his combative and hard
style of interviewing whereas Russell is well known as a person who does not stay away from
talking and establishing own point of views. The matter discussed in the interview was
political, about economic as well as educational in nature so it required both of them keeping
their own egos away. Instead of doing these both, the interviewer got engaged in argument
and making insulting comment to each other. Both of them tried to make each other look
down. The topic of the interview appeared something to which both of them feel deeply
which make them be subjective. Jeremy introduced Russell to the audience in the very
beginning in a condescending approach (Plunkett, 2019). Confidence building or the effort to
make the interviewee at ease does not take place in the total procedure rather Paxman tried to
instigate Russell’s anger and both of them mocked each other for supporting each other
views. Paxman rushed to insult Russell without giving him much time to settle in and go with
the flow of the process. Brand also made the fun of Paxman by laughing on him and his

6CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
views as well as started to ask rhetorical questions, which are not answerable to Paxman. The
interview was started by Paxman but ended by Brand.
To make the interview process more effective both the participant should keep their
superiority of attitude away. As an interviewer, Paxman should start the interview in way
where the interviewee must feel at ease to get most of from him (Schifferes et al. 2014).
Paxman should avoid his combative style especially when he is taking the interview of a man
who is deliberate to establish his own point of view. Jeremy should give time to Brand to
express his points of views in his own way without instigating him through pushing as well as
insulting him for his stand. Jeremy should try to build the confidence of Brand through giving
him time to express his views without rushing for criticizing him. Both the parties required to
approach the matter with objectivity and rationality without being subjective and emotional
(Bevan 2014).
Conclusion
From the above observations, it can be concluded that the television interview had a
great purpose in respect to political, economic and educational domain. The most famous
interviewer also used multiple effective tactics of interviewing but their ambiguous intentions
and subjective emotional approach to the matter has caused the failure of the procedure. To
utilize the opportunity and get the most desired result from the event as well as make it more
effective both the participant required to act with objectivity, rationality and keep the
personal views as well as pre-existing personal views away. They should evaluate the reasons
of apathetic approach of the young generation to the present governmental structure and
suggest an effective way to bring the effective solution to the recent problem the nation is
facing. The effective steps can be taken to ensure the minimum economic disparity of wealth,
with improvement and development of the nation.

7CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

8CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
References
Acemoglu, D., Reed, T. and Robinson, J.A., 2013. Chiefs: elite control of civil society and
economic development in Sierra Leone (No. w18691). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Achdou, Y., Han, J., Lasry, J.M., Lions, P.L. and Moll, B., 2017. Income and wealth
distribution in macroeconomics: A continuous-time approach (No. w23732). National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Arthurs, J. and Shaw, S., 2016. Celebrity capital in the political field: Russell Brand’s
migration from stand-up comedy to Newsnight. Media, culture & society, 38(8), pp.1136-
1152.
Barlett, J., 2013. Russell Brand has a point about disillusionment with politics, but he is
wrong when he says young people shouldn’t vote. Democratic Audit Blog.
Bevan, M.T., 2014. A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative health
research, 24(1), pp.136-144.
Brassett, J., 2016. British comedy, global resistance: Russell Brand, Charlie Brooker and
Stewart Lee. European Journal of International Relations, 22(1), pp.168-191
Heater, D., 2013. What is citizenship?. John Wiley & Sons.
Plunkett, J. (2019). Paxman: Brand was right over public's disgust at 'tawdry pretences' of
politics. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/05/paxman-politics-russell-brand-voting
[Accessed 23 Sep. 2019].

9CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Schifferes, S., Newman, N., Thurman, N., Corney, D., Göker, A. and Martin, C., 2014.
Identifying and verifying news through social media: Developing a user-centred tool for
professional journalists. Digital journalism, 2(3), pp.406-418.
SUBLENKO - Website & Mobile Development Farnham Surrey. (2019). Paxman vs Russell
Brand - full interview - BBC Newsnight BBC Newsnight 24 — SUBLENKO - Website &
Mobile Development Farnham Surrey. [online] Available at:
https://www.sublenko.com/equals-blog/2019/4/25/paxman-vs-russell-brand-full-interview-
bbc-newsnight-bbc-newsnight-24 [Accessed 23 Sep. 2019].
Wheelwright, J., 2013. Paxman/Adie reviews. The Independent.
Young, D.R., 2013. If not for profit, for what?. (1983 Print Edition) Lexington Books.