Holding Political Speakers 'to account': Reflections from my time at The Oxford Union

A few months ago I wrote my first article for LinkedIn, focused on how I approached interviewing speakers at The Oxford Union by using the case study of Alfie Boe. I wanted to follow this up by reflecting on how to hold political speakers ‘to account’, considering what effectively challenging a speaker means and the potential options for going about this. The example I will use from my time as Librarian (Vice President) of The Oxford Union will be interviewing Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff.

Theoretically, what does holding a speaker ‘to account’ mean? I keep putting ‘to account’ in inverted commas because I feel we need to acknowledge the limits of what an hour long conversation can achieve. Absolutely when hosting a speaker with political or controversial views they should not get off without it being mentioned; particularly in a place as politically aware and active as Oxford to do so undermines the importance of the forum and leaves many unanswered questions for the audience. However we need to be realistic about the experience of the speaker compared to somebody like myself – we are very likely to come across individuals who are relentlessly media savvy, who are thinking about the audience not just in the room but online who may be far more favourable to their viewpoint than those physically present. So absolutely we should attempt to challenge speakers, but the threshold we set for being successful should be potentially lower than we would set for a good interview on a news channel.

What part of an interview is actually holding the speaker to account? We need to operationalise the concept of holding a speaker to account, and consider what success means in practice. In my opinion this involves asking the speaker difficult questions, trying to avoid allowing them to dodge what they don’t want to speak about, and involving the audience in the room to ask questions so we hear a variety of viewpoints. I feel when you do have an audience in a room we really benefit from hearing their insights and perspectives to ensure the conversation is more informed – I had as a general rule the second I feel I had exhausted my general train of questioning, then it was appropriate to hand over to the audience to give them as much opportunity as possible to interact with the speaker. Speakers are unlikely to change their perspective on an issue just from hearing one person ask a challenging question about it, so the aim is more to allow alternative perspectives to be heard respectfully so individuals can make their own minds up. Individuals need to believe what they are saying will be heard, and that alternate viewpoints will be given consideration.

A key way I tried to ensure speakers could be challenged was the introduction of the Guest Speaker Invitation Policy for The Oxford Union last summer. This policy outlined to speakers and to the wider public exactly what somebody should expect when they are hosted at the Union; specifically that the invitation is on the Society’s terms, meaning questions unless particularly sensitive should not be off bounds. They should be willing to engage with differing perspectives, and that the role of the Society is not just to promote what an individual is working on but to critically analyse their perspectives or views where appropriate. I feel this policy has been effective in managing the expectations of speakers, and also plays a useful educational role to media outlets or stakeholders engaging in the Society so they know how the Society conducts its speaker meetings.

There are two approaches to holding speakers to account. The first is the approach I took with Mick Mulvaney, asking questions that take the alternative viewpoint to them (the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach). Mulvaney in his interview condemned the coronavirus lockdowns and said the relative cost to young people was far higher than the cost to older people if a different health intervention had been chosen. As an interviewer I saw it my role to ensure people with different perspectives would be heard, asking him if he really was comfortable risking the lives of older people or seeing their lives as having a lower ‘value’ than younger people. Mulvaney defended his perspective, but I was glad to have asked a follow-up question to ensure people could really reflect on the meaning behind his policy positions to weigh up for themselves if this was fair. Particularly with speakers who we may not initially be so familiar with, it is important to start from the basics to learn their journey and opinions before really challenging them or pushing back. To not give them the space to express their view cuts the conversation off early, and means for the audience it feels like they are joining having missed half of the conversation; to best challenge someone’s views, you need to understand them first. A good interview should take you from A to B, avoiding getting too specific or specialised too early so the audience are gradually eased into the conversation. While challenging an individual’s views, we should not forget the bigger picture and the wider ideological prisms or frameworks speakers work through. I don’t believe spending an entire interview focusing on one controversial issue is effective unless that is what the speaker has come to speak about, as it means we miss wider details about a speaker’s life or broader perspectives they may hold.

The second approach to challenging speakers is a more adversarial approach, diving in for particular areas of controversy and having a set of constructed questions which really push back against what the speaker thinks before handing over to the audience to also engage in this more robust ‘clash of views’ approach. The key difference between this approach and the previous one is the framing of the position of the interviewer and the level of intensity of the conversation; while the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach keeps the interviewer more neutral and as a facilitator, this approach sees the interviewer directly engage in the debate and push back against the speaker almost like a debate. This approach can feel far more tense and purposeful given it is aimed at exposing contradictions or disagreeable sections of a speaker’s perspective, taking into account the perspectives of the audience and how individuals are likely to feel about this speaker. This was not an approach I felt necessary in any of the interviews I took part in, but for speakers who attract particular controversy it may be the most appropriate way forward so that audience members feel the speaker has not been given a ‘bully pulpit’ just to spread their views. Despite the Society being politically and value neutral in many respects, to host a speaker does give them a legitimacy and platform to reach potentially thousands or even millions of people. This needs keeping in mind when hosting and interviewing speakers. A drawback to this approach is that it can miss the nuance of a speaker’s perspective, and may make the speaker ‘close up’ – if a speaker feels under attack, they are unlikely to wish to share all of their views openly or engage in free-flow discussion for fear of being ‘caught out’ or ‘cancelled’ for something they say. So the interviewer plays a key role in setting the temperature and intensity of a discussion, and there are multiple factors that need taking into account when considering the strategy for interviewing a speaker.

So we need to be realistic about how much we can hold a speaker ‘to account’, and there are different approaches to doing so. In some interviews it may be more appropriate to have open discussion to allow different perspectives to be heard in long-form; in other interviews it may feel more appropriate for the interviewer to push on particular controversies so audience members feel the speaker hasn’t been written a blank cheque to say whatever they like without consequence. The writings of Mill (seen by many as giving the ideological underpinnings of free speech) make clear that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, and this is something we must keep in mind in all discussions. There will always be another perspective, so we must try our best to make sure they are heard so individuals leave an interview more aware. My final thought on interviewing controversial speakers is to ensure not to dive down a ‘rabbit hole’ or get stuck on a single area which may distract from wider issues – not only may this allow a speaker to avoid talking about more challenging areas, but it can alienate the audience as it feels like the interviewer is not playing a facilitator role in getting to talk about a wide range of issues. Audience is important to consider in all discussions, only complicated by the digital media world we live in.

You can watch my interview with Mick Mulvaney here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Arl60Dj2x8&t=2469s