It’s a cultural thing. British politicians do most of their granstanding during Prime Minister’s Questions, which is televised, rather than committee hearings, which generally aren’t. Also, parliamentary committees are basically powerless, so grandstanding in the US style would come off as rather silly. That isn’t to say MPs don’t play silly games and ask stupid questions (some of the financial crisis hearings were really bad), but they don’t usually monologue just because they like the sound of their own voice in the way Senators do.

Even Watson and Mensch, while very pointed with their questions (and sometimes having to repeat them b/c of James Murdoch’s sometimes incomprehensible ramblings) still comported themselves.

I wonder, could it perhaps be because the committee had to formally “invite” rather than compel the Murdoch’s to appear as witnesses? Or is it simply a difference in culture?

I thought the tone of the interview with Brooks was much more adversarial though understandable given her more precarious legal position.

Kudos to Watson and Mensch for some very sharp questions.

Isn’t that what they have been doing for a few years? And isn’t that what has led them to where they are today?

If it was a win for Murdoch, it would be the beginning of the end (like say the start of the 4th quarter), because that’s a lot later in the whole process than the end of the beginning (end of the first quarter).