Respect and Courtesy. Are they real concepts?

I am not sure if I am not just being a pedantic old fart, and it is an accusation that HAS been levelled at me before, but have we lost the ability to show respect and courtesy, even to those we vehemently disagree with?

Once again, listening to the ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4, I became more and more frustrated, and therefore distracted from the content, by the inability of the interviewer/journalist (delete as appropriate – least insulting) to let a representative of The Anti-War Coalition actually finish a sentence.

It was rude, unnecessary, and disruptive to what could have been the presentation and questioning of an alternative viewpoint. If you invite someone onto a programme to respond to questions, surely it is sensible to at least listen to the whole answer before offering alternative views.

And it would have been less infuriating if the interruptions were to raise a valid point, rather than to hammer away endlessly at a minor and not particularly relevant point.

What was interesting was that, within the space of 15 minutes, an ‘establishment’ representative was interviewed, and not interrupted once. Go figure.

Now, I will always support the BBC, and will argue endlessly for their independence (too late?) and their fundamental lack of political bias BUT ….

It has become the standard that, to some extent irrespective of who it is being interviewed, no-one is allowed to finish a sentence. Whether it be ‘Today’, ‘Question  Time’, ‘Any Questions’, or any number of other magazine and ‘public service’ programmes provided by all broadcasters, the trend is the same.

I know politicians can prevaricate, or straight bullshit, and be vague beyond the depths of a pea-souper at times, but there is no excuse. Ask a question, and allow an answer. If it isn’t an answer, then say so and ask again. It makes the point more clearly than constant interruptions.

And get the balance right. Ideally don’t do it to anyone, but at least get the rudeness equalised across full range of participants (victims). There is a clear bias against those from non-governmental or establishment organisations, as if their opinion is somehow more suspect and therefore more ripe for challenge by interruption.

And to encapsulate the problem, when a woman discussing ‘locker-room’ banter is in conversation with two men, and she is the only one who has to struggle to complete a sentence, it says it all.