As a preamble to Paxo's interviews with party leaders, Mosey describes the problem as stemming from the mid-1990s at the BBC when the director general, John Birt, and a handful of governors asked him to lead a project into "courtesy in interviewing".
The Birtian project involved a swath of research which revealed: "Our audiences thought we were too soft on politicians, and Paxman and
Humphrys were among the BBC's most respected broadcasters. The courtesy in interviewing project was quietly dropped."
...
If the BBC polled people on: "Would you watch Jeremy Paxman slap Tony Blair repeatedly round the face with a large, wet haddock?", I imagine the overwhelming response would be "Yes", and the ratings would be fantastic. The impotent rage many feel about the unaccountable Blair leadership getting away without a credible opposition is summed up in their delight at watching him squirm under heavy artillery from Paxo. It might be great showbiz telly, but is it helpful political journalism?
Channel 4's Jon Snow said this week he thought Paxman had helped eradicate deference in political interviewing, but added: "Perhaps we could do with a bit more deference." Mosey thinks not: "There was gratifying proof of what the audience prefers; 2,400,000 watched Paxman and Kennedy on BBC1 while one third of that figure watched the more deferential Channel 4."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1466129,00.html