Analysis of Interview between Jeremy Praxman and Russell Brand

This paper analyzes and interprets an interview between Jeremy Praxman and Russell Brand about voting, revolution, and socio-political discourses. It explores conflict management during conversations and interpersonal communication.

Running head: INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Discussion....................................................................................................................................................2
Overview of the interview.......................................................................................................................2
Dynamics of the interview.......................................................................................................................3
Conflict Management..............................................................................................................................4
Prejudices exhibited................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................6

2INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Introduction
The respective paper is an analysis and interpretation of an interview between Jeremy Praxman
and Russell Brand about voting, revolution and socio-political discourses which had been aired
on BBC Newsnight. The interview is significant and important in order to understand conflict
management during conversations and interpersonal communication. Conflict management is
considered to be an art in today’s contemporary world and in order to achieve purpose and goal
in lives and workplace, conflict management is the most important soft skill an individual has to
imbibe, especially in interpersonal communication (Wolff and Yakinthou 2013). The interview
between Praxman and Brand proves to be an important example of how conflict is built and dealt
with or tackled. The respective paper is in an essay format analyzing and interpreting the
respective interview intensely.
Discussion
Overview of the interview
In the interview provided hereafter, the interviewer is Praxman and the interviewee is Russell
Brand. Jeremy Paxman, who has anchored and taken the interview is a British journalist,
broadcaster, television presenter and an author as well (Youtube.com.2013). The interviewee
was Russell Brand, who is a stand-up comedian, an entertainer, actor and a media personality of
British origin. The purpose of the respective interview was to discuss about the political views
and stances taken up by Russell Brand who peculiarly did not belong to any kind of political
background. The interview was about the discussion of the political magazine which Brand had
edited though he did not have any editorial certification skills or any kind of editorial
background. The interview was based on Brand’s idea of politics, revolution and personal/

3INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
individual identity. The way by which Paxman questioned or rather interrogated Brand indeed
had certain essence of sarcasm, satire and intended pun which could have given rise to conflict
between the two people. However, with judicious and intelligent handling and honest replies of
Brand to the questions thrown at him by Paxman, the interview apparently did not escalate to
conflict, rather, was proved to be managing conflicts of different kinds. The interview has been
initiated by Jeremy Paxman in a dominating and accusing tone where he had clearly asked Brand
about his authenticity of becoming an editor of a political magazine (Ekström and Tolson 2017).
In such an adamant question, Russell Brand had provided Jeremy with a polite yet witty and
confident answer that he was insisted to become the editor of the respective political magazine
by a young and attractive woman.
Dynamics of the interview
Throughout the interview, Jeremy Paxman had tried to underestimate, demoralize and question
Russell Brand regarding his political thought processes, honestly, which the political journalists
often do, as if he was a misfit in the political zone and hardly had any kind of theoretical and
scholastic achievement in the areas of politics (Moffitt and Tormey 2014). However, as Russell
Brand was a comedian himself and had the sharp witty intellect to win any situation with the
help of comedy and talks of lighter note, was able to counter attack Jeremy Paxman and took
help of conflict management skills to tactfully answer the complex and most controversial
questions thrown at him. Therefore, through the interview, the audience might learn the tactful
and witty ways by which an argument can be satiated or managed by avoiding any kind of
unnecessary dispute or conflict.
The storyline behind the interview was that the interview was completely based on the
interrogation of the television sensation, stand-up comedian and actor turned political activist

4INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Russell Brand. The principal factor of the interview is that how can an individual, with effective
interpersonal communication skills, might as well tackle the conflict situation that can arise from
any simple to haughty conversation (Overton and Lowry 2013). In the interview, the interviewer
seemed to be having a threatening tone towards the interviewee in order to intimidate him to
bring out the hidden complexities in him (Zhang, Chen and Sun 2015). Often, the threat strategy
interviews are incorporated in the celebrity interview sessions in order to extract the desired
information by confusing and intimidating the interviewee, which is often carried out in order to
achieve certain goals on behalf of the interviewer (Durso, Kazi and Ferguson 2015). The threat
strategy interview has been incorporated in the respective interview along with a kind of
accusation that was imposed on the interviewee to make him confused of the situation (Dignath,
Kiesel and Eder 2015).
Conflict Management
The participants, Paxman and Brand have been talking about the authenticity of getting involved
in editing of political magazine by Brand, whether he was eligible to be an editor of such reputed
political magazine or did he have any authentic, logical and correct taste about politics,
revolution and democracy underneath the showmanship he exhibits in the society (Schirm 2019).
The first question that Paxman asked Brand was that “Russell Brand, who are you to edit a
political magazine?” To the respective question, Russell Brand had provided Jeremy with a
polite yet witty and confident answer that he was insisted to become the editor of the respective
political magazine by a young and attractive woman. Instead of saying this, Brand could have
provided a better answer. He could have told Paxman that since he is a citizen of the country and
being apolitical is foolishness, therefore, he has decided to exhibit his political proficiency, so he
took up the responsibility of editing a political magazine (Van Prooijen and Krouwel 2019).

5INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Logical and rational answers have always been best in case of deliberate conflict or dispute. As
the conversation keeps on moving forward, glimpses of Brand’s apathy towards the system and a
nascent touch of anti- establishment gets reflected with his dialogues where he states that he was
in a constant fight with the system and he demanded for a better system that would be free from
corruption and evil, which is why, as stated by Brand, he never voted during election (Hartleb
2015). The precise reason that he gives for his not casting vote to the politicians was the failure
of democracy in the hands of the corrupt politician and that he had lost all hope and expectation
from the system (Mudde 2016). While he uttered such answers, it might have been interpreted by
most of the ordinary people that Brand could be a “rebel without a cause”. To make matters
clear, he could have told in clear and precise way, why he has lost hope in system and what
could be rational and scientific way of revival of society without much digression from the topic.
A precise and organized answer to conflict is the best way of conflict management (Zhang, Chen
and Sun 2015). However, the next intriguing part of the interview was that of the statement
which Jeremy Paxman uttered, which was “You are a very trivial man”. The statement that he
uttered that Brand might have been a trivial man was not directed to him in order to insult him.
Instead, the statement was uttered by the interviewer to Brand in order to cajole or persuade him
to speak up which was the real purpose of the respective interview. I believe that instead of such
indirect provocation, Paxman could have taken a polite approach to make Brand understand his
limit or where he might be standing rather than taking the threat strategy. Threat strategies of
interviews are not always helpful in case of informal media interviews and depend upon the
situation (Gasiorek and Giles 2013). A conflict that happens in a provoking interview is best met
by the help of witty, patient and logical explanations which has not been noticed all the time

6INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
through the respective interview. The prejudices of Paxman also led him to be opinionated which
led to an obnoxious conflict which could have been avoided.
Prejudices exhibited
The renowned and Augustan journalist, Paxman was not even able to realize the fact that in order
to understand politics, social relations, societal conditions and be opinionated, a person needs to
have a particular degree or a scholastic background (Amodio 2014). In the respective case of the
interview, where it has been seen that the interviewer Paxman was constantly exhibiting his
disbelief and distasteful attitude towards Brand because brand was a stand- up comedian, an
actor and a philanthropist who did not have any literary, scholastic and humanistic background
and he had shown his political and socio-political opinion (Independent.co.uk.2013). He
mentioned Brand as a trivial man, even though it is understood that he did not completely mean
it. Such prejudices have also shaped the conflict exhibited in the interview, making it worse
(Mackie. and Hamilton 2014).
Conclusion
The respective paper concludes to be an analysis and interpretation of an interview between
Jeremy Praxman and Russell Brand about voting, revolution and socio-political discourses which
had been aired on BBC Newsnight. The respective paper concludes by giving deep insights
about the interview. The respective interview is significant and important in order to understand
conflict management during conversations and interpersonal communication. The interview
between Praxman and Brand proves to be an important example of how conflict is built and dealt

7INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
with or tackled. The respective paper concludes to be in an essay format analyzing and
interpreting the respective interview intensely, intrinsically and instrumentally.
References:
Independent.co.uk.2013. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/russell-
brand-is-far-from-trivial-on-newsnight-he-made-paxman-look-ridiculous-8901524.html
Youtube.com.2013. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk
Durso, F.T., Kazi, S. and Ferguson, A.N., 2015. The threat-strategy interview. Applied
ergonomics, 47, pp.336-344.
Wolff, S. and Yakinthou, C. eds., 2013. Conflict management in divided societies: theories and
practice. Routledge.
Overton, A.R. and Lowry, A.C., 2013. Conflict management: difficult conversations with
difficult people. Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 26(04), pp.259-264.
Dignath, D., Kiesel, A. and Eder, A.B., 2015. Flexible conflict management: conflict avoidance
and conflict adjustment in reactive cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), p.975.
Zhang, S.J., Chen, Y.Q. and Sun, H., 2015. Emotional intelligence, conflict management styles,
and innovation performance: An empirical study of Chinese employees. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 26(4), pp.450-478.

8INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Wang, Y., Zhang, K. and Deng, Y., 2019. Base belief function: An efficient method of conflict
management. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(9), pp.3427-3437.
Gasiorek, J. and Giles, H., 2013. Accommodating the interactional dynamics of conflict
management. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), pp.10-21.
Amodio, D.M., 2014. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 15(10), p.670.
Mackie, D.M. and Hamilton, D.L. eds., 2014. Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in group perception. Academic Press.
Hartleb, F., 2015. Here to stay: anti-establishment parties in Europe. European View, 14(1),
pp.39-49.
Mudde, C., 2016. On extremism and democracy in Europe. Routledge.
Van Prooijen, J.W. and Krouwel, A.P., 2019. Overclaiming knowledge predicts anti-
establishment voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, p.1948550619862260.
Schirm, S.A., 2019. In pursuit of self-determination and redistribution: emerging powers and
Western anti-establishment voters in international politics. Global Affairs, pp.1-16.
Moffitt, B. and Tormey, S., 2014. Rethinking populism: Politics, mediatisation and political
style. Political studies, 62(2), pp.381-397.
Ekström, M. and Tolson, A., 2017. Political interviews: Pushing the boundaries of ‘neutralism’.
In The Mediated Politics of Europe (pp. 123-149). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

9INTERVIEW ANALYSIS