The problem with most political journalism is that it just doesn’t engage with ordinary people.
In fact, political journalists only seem to be talking to each other; they appear more concerned with some sort of pissing contest, the aim of which is to make their interviewees more and more uncomfortable at the expense any meaningful dialogue.
They demand simple yes/no answers to questions on issues that are far too complex for such a response with the sole intention, as far as one can discern, of generating conflict and confrontation. Not that the hapless politician/expert/official has much chance of giving any sort of answer: they’ll be interrupted before they manage to splutter to the end of their first sentence. One imagines the political journalists have a sweepstake running on who’ll get the next walkout. They seem to think we, the punters, only want to be entertained by reality TV style bust-ups and slanging matches; but we have Geordie Shore for that.
Anyway, the consequence of all this is that the poor old averagely intelligent punter is deprived of any useful information or significant analysis. The political journalists really need to up their game.
Or perhaps what’s needed is to subject the political journalists to some sort of ‘inquisition’, to give them a taste of their own medicine, but let’s up the ante, though, and make it one with racks, strappados, braziers and tongs. That would make good telly, Paxman.