BBC HARDtalk - Stephen Sackur : A Review

Stephen Sackur

Program: BBC HARDtalk
Interviewer: Stephen Sackur

Interviewee: Paul Refsdal (journalist and film maker)

è The interview starts with the interviewer commenting about the media’s relectness to report terrorist attacks in places like Syria where as they are seemed to have more concerned about the minor attacks in Ghana and also about the people’s approach in understanding the men who are involved in killing in the name of their religion. And the interviewer Stephen Sachur introduces Paul Refsdal to the show “Hard Talk” as a person who has tried to deepen our understanding about the above mentioned topics. Thus made a criticism to the media field that even he is belonging to.

è A well said introduction which introduces the topic as well as the guest in a single go.

è The style of the interview is in such a way that the interviewer draws the attention of the audience with some facts and assumptions along with a question that is to be answered by the Interviewee.

è Mr. Stephen sets the plot orderly in a way that Mr. Paul could start right from the motivation of his work to the results that followed.

è The interviewer marks a goal when he becomes successful in stating from Mr. Paul’s words that he have a sense of sympathy towards the terror group members thought he says that he only wished to report from the ‘other side’.

è The interview gains the audience side by its way of presentation. It seems like an informal talk though it is well packaged.

è The interview being a Television program, they have included video clips from Paul’s film to ask about the nature of people who were filmed in. And Paul is seemed to explain the good in those people rather than highlighting the terror they create.

Paul Refsdal

è Mr. Stephen even questions what if the film that Paul made could be more like a motivation for people in other parts of the world and by asking this the interviewer is  actually questioning him indirectly about Paul’s involvement in terror promotion. Showing the interviewer’s true aim of letting the hidden truth out of him.

è While asking about all those things that Paul did, Mr. Stephen doesn’t forget to talk  about the risk that Paul have undertaken to document his film. Which eventually connects to his personal life. By this he gets the talk to a sentimental approach to get the details unknown.  

è The interview ends when Mr. Stephen makes a question whether he would go back to Syria to find what happens next, Mr. Paul replies that he would definitely go. And this part gives the audience an energy in such a way that they doesn’t feel that the talk actually ‘ends’!!

è Finally speaking the interview with Paul Refsdal made the audience to think from the other side too inorder to understand the problems of the so called “terrorists”.

è The tone of the interview was satisfactory.

è the highlight was that the way the talk was presented could generate a visual treatment while carrying out the interview.