Conflict Management Evaluation for the Interview of Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand

This reflective analysis of the interview between Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand is an attempt to identify the conflicts that raised themselves during the course of the interview and figure out a path of conflict resolution from the point of view of both the participants.

1

Conflict Management Evaluation for the interview of Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand
2

Introduction
The journals of mass medium say that an interview is a great way of knowing a person to the
core of his heart if the interviewee follows certain norms to understand the real intent behind the
replies that a person is offering (Brugha et al, 2016). From the point of view of an interviewer, it
is important for a person to understand the direct and hidden agenda of the interviewee. It is a
general pretext that most of the celebrities often come up to elaborate upon a conflict, but ends
up serving their personal agendas (Chen et al, 2017). This somehow corrupts the environment of
the negotiation and drifts the conversation into tangent arenas. The current reflective analysis of
the interview between Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand is an attempt to identify the conflicts
that raised themselves during the course of the interview. Apart from the identification of the
conflict points we will also try to figure out a path of conflict resolution from the point of view
of both the participants.
Analysis of the Interview
While going for the analysis of an interview an analyst can find six-pointers that can serve
handily. These six pointers go asunder.
 Identification of the intentions behind the questions
 Identifications of the replies from the point of view of the interviewee
 Intermediate responses of the interviewee
 The tendency of the non-reply and the intentions behind
 Presence of illustrative examples to support the arguments
3

The overall description of the interview gives us an idea that Russell belongs to a “radical school
of thoughts.” He wants to see some major changes in the system. On the other hand Jeremy
reflects a personality that suggests that he is seeking for answers in connection with the
improvement in the given system. There is a particular answer where Russell stated that he is
seeking for genuine solutions from the government. He stated about the representation of the
genuine people, this is a big statement and it can be interpreted as an allegation on the
government. Jeremy mitigated the impact of this question by bringing in the mention of the
voting rights. The biggest conflict of this interview is not issue-based; the biggest issue in this
interview is related to the intentions of the persons. Russell is not addressing the problems of the
country; instead he is targeting the sovereign. Russell is not talking about the alternative the
ways associated with the problems; instead he is trying to put the blame on the authorities
(Wood, 2013).
While looking at the content of the interview we can clearly see that Jeremy emerges as a
seasoned interviewer because he identified the wrong intentions behind the answers given by
Russell. Russell was trying to deflect the purpose of the interview, for instance, while giving one
of the answers he used the phrase the “genuine solutions, voice of the genuine people is missing
from the limelight” It was a statement against supposed anarchy made by the system. However,
Jeremy took the right stance when mitigated the impact of the expression by talking about the
role of the voters in the process of the formation of government (Wood, 2016).
This single exchange of the banter between the two gives us an idea about the flow of the
interview. We can see many such examples where Russell tried to come up with a radical agenda
4

and Jeremy mitigated it by bringing in the righteous point of view to balance the impact of the
question raised (Vierna et al.2013)
Conflict management Evaluation of the interview
The main conflict associated with this interview is related to the focus of the Russell. There is
nothing wrong with having a radical view. The greatest of the scientists and social thinkers of the
world have a radical view of certain events. Most of the prevailing religions of the world are an
outcome of a radical point of view. However, they met with success because the promoters of the
religions posited themselves among the existing system and gradually brought a change in the
system, finally a point came when previous system either became redundant or they started
treating it as a radical culture (Blee et al, 2013).
In the present interview, Russell is presenting a radical viewpoint, we appreciate it, and however,
he is not positing himself among the people. Telling an authority to do the right thing is the right
of every citizen; however, trying to eradicate an authority chosen by the government is wrong.
Russell is trying to present the details of certain wrong practices from a narrow focus. A narrow
focus on the issue can be described with the help of the positioning of a person while sitting on
the table of the negotiation (Bayard et al, 2011). Narrow focus shuns the ability of a person to
look at the greater goods associated with the deal. In the case of Russell he is deliberately
promoting the thoughts driven out of a narrow focus. Jeremy, on the other hand, is trying to bring
out the same issues from a wider perspective (Baines et al, 2011).
From the surface it seems that both Jeremy and Russell are trying to resolve an issue with the
help of a discussion, however, the moment we check the context and the focus of the Russell it
5

reflects that he has certain other interests. The root theories behind the art of communication and
negotiation clearly state that having a different position on the issues never means that the
interests of the parties are different, this is also evident in the case of the Russell and Jeremy.
Both of them are sharing the same interest which is related to the “greater interest” of the society.
However, their methods and viewpoints on the same issue are different (AI, 2010).
At the part of Russell, it is a big failure because his narrow focus somehow mitigated the impact
of the right statements that he was making about the system. Our democracy allows us to raise
right issues on the right platforms under a frightful tone. Russell is not respecting this
fundamental right, after a point it starts looking as if he is representing a minority. Although he is
raising the issues of the masses and individuals in general, Russell is quite right when he is
saying that majority of the politicians are inside the political arena because of the nepotism and
not by the virtue of the social service, which should be the first criteria. However, he fails in
delivering a message when he blames voter for their choice. This reflects the narrow focus of the
Russell, nepotism can promote a person ahead in the rank, and however, people don’t vote for
name of political party, it is equally about the policies of that political party as well (Tasoluk et
al.2012).
This example also gives us an idea that Russell is deliberately convoluting the communication
with an intention to narrow the focus of the viewers, Jeremy, on the other hand, is supplying the
right facts to remove that convolution created by him (Roose, 2016).
This interview is full of places where Russell is trying to impose his opinion on the issues, for
instance there is an answer where he says that socialism has the answer to solve the problem, the
wealth of the country should be distributed equally among the 85 percent population of the
6

country, factually it is incorrect, when he says that only 300 individuals are holding the 85
percent of the wealth of United States. The fact is this that most of the fortunes earned by the top
500 companies of the USA are still in the hands of common public because they are the
shareholders (Mayer et al, 2012).
My evaluation of the proper roles of both the persons
Jeremy conducted himself well throughout the interview; his stance of representing the “voice of
the public” remained stationary throughout. Russell, on the other hand, failed miserably because
he never responded to the counter questions, at the beginning of this reflection we mentioned
about the six important facts related to the conductance of an interview, asking intermediary
questions is a rightful duty of the interviewer and Jeremy performed it well (Laung et al, 2015).
Russell failed on two merits, first he pretended that he is not able to understand the intention
behind the questions of the Jeremy and secondly, with the help of the humor he created some
situations that can be considered as the situation of “no-reply”.
Conclusion
I am writing a verdict against Russell, and let’s bid kudos to Jeremy for that, he managed the
proceedings well and never allowed Russell to inflict his narrowly focused view. Russell created
a conflict in the interview by bringing in an agenda of the self-promotion under the guise of
certain issues, but Jeremy countered them all while maintaining an amicable smile on his face.
We can take home an important lesson from this exercise. “Sometimes, individuals having the
same interests may have conflicting opinions and this can cause a roadblock in the process of the
negotiation.
7

8

References
Amnesty International (2010) In the waiting room: Internally displaced people in Georgia
(online) Retrieved From :(https://www.amnesty.org/en/ documents/EUR56/002/2010/en/).
Accessed, 21-9-19.
Baines, Erin K (2009) Complex political perpetrators: Reflections on Dominic Ongwen. Journal
of Modern African Studies 47(2): 163–191.
Bayard de Volo, Lorraine (2009) Participant-observation, politics, and power relations:
Nicaraguan mothers and US casino waitresses. In: Edward Schatz (ed.) Political Ethnography:
What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
217–236.
Blee, Kathleen M (2013) Evidence, empathy, and ethics: Lessons from oral histories of the Klan.
Journal of American History 80(2): 596–606. Blee, Kathleen M (1998) White-knuckle research:
Emotional dynamics in fieldwork with racist activists. Qualitative Sociology 21(4): 381–399
Brugha, C.M. (2016), “A meta-system for understanding international conflict”, International
Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 17-23.
Chen, G. and Starosta, W.J. (2017), “Chinese conflict management and resolution: overview and
implications”, Intercultural Communication Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-16
Leung, K., Koch, P.T. and Lu, L. (2012), “A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for
conflict management in Asia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 201-20.
9

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (2015), “An integrative model of organizational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Roose, P.D. (2016), “A call for research on collaboration versus traditional bargaining in labor-
management relationships”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.
352-5. Tasoluk, B., Yaprak, A. and Calantone, R.J. (2012), “Conflict and collaboration in
headquarters-subsidiary relationships: an agency theory perspective on product rollouts in an
emerging market”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 332-51.
Viterna, Jocelyn (2016) Pulled, pushed, and persuaded: Explaining women’s mobilization into
the Salvadoran guerrilla army. American Journal of Sociology 112(1): 1–45.
Wood, Elisabeth J (2013) Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, Elisabeth J (2016) The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative
Sociology 29(1): 272–286.
10