Brent Hansen moves closer to the edge of his seat. But it's obvious he's ready to fight rather than take flight. In fact, the gleam in Hansen's eyes suggests he relishes this opportunity to defend MTV Europe, of which he is President and Chief Executive. He is certainly aware of the criticisms levelled at the global television network, and agrees that beyond all the hype that is bound to accompany next week's broadcast of the MTV Europe Music Awards from Dublin, questions need to be asked about the exact nature of what he affectionately describes as "this beast". Specifically in terms of MTV's all-pervasive influence on music; and culture, in general.

But then questions about the ideological and economic power base of MTV were being asked as far back as 1980, when ex-Monkee Michael Nesmith - who not only shot the first set of video-clips for American television but is credited, in part, with creating MTV - parted company with John Lack, former CBS radio executive, just as both were about to start the music channel.

Nesmith believed that "Lack was talking about running commercials for records. He, on the other hand, thought music videos were an art form all their own" according to MTV: The Making Of A Revolution, by Tom McGrath. Even so, Hansen dismisses as "out-dated" The Rolling Stone History of Rock's list of gripes against MTV, which also claims "music video destroys the boundaries between creativity and commercialism" and "lionises beauty over talent, objectifies women, ruins the individual experience of a song . . . " etc.

"We don't `objectify' people. It's up to the artists, how they present themselves," he says, seriously suggesting, for example, that Mariah Carey's current Heartbreaker video, in which she's seen scantily clad and draped over a car, is "how she wants to portray" herself.

"We don't ask people to be overtly `sexy'. In fact the more richly-textured a video is, cinematographically, the better for us because anything too in-your-face has a higher burn-out factor, bores viewers more quickly," he continues. "And as for `lionises beauty over talent'? Sure, if you're good-looking on screen, it helps. But people don't buy music just because an artist looks good. It's still the song they buy. Yet in terms of the broader question of representations of sex, race, gender, we, like every other television station operating out of the UK, have to work within the boundaries set down by the ITC code. And have our own standards. If we feel something is belittling to a race, or sex, we don't do that. We are very aware that we could be perceived as `corrupting' people, influencing them the wrong way."

MTV, of course, has to be hyper-sensitive in this respect. If only because, as with any form of broadcast and print media in a consumer society, it is ultimately in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers. Hansen agrees, but regards himself as "relatively liberal" when it comes to deciding whether a video is "likely to offend" or "making some form of artistic statement that might challenge people and, as such, should get played".

He also wants to take risks, he says, rather than "play it safe, as too much radio does, by relying on what's in the charts", and sees MTV as helping to shape rather than simply reflect popular tastes. But when Hansen claims MTV "helped kill" the public appetite for "reprehensible" heavy metal music "suspender belt" videos of the late 1980s, surely he sees the irony in the fact that this effect was unintended and was achieved by saturating the market with such videos.

"We played videos to suit what we saw as the public appetite, but should have made a `good taste' decision that stopped us doing so, but didn't," he responds. "And there is the argument that by continuing to play such videos MTV was feeding the public appetite, so the appetite grows. But popular tastes are shaped by far more than MTV! Let's face it, it's a pretty sick person who watches MTV all day!"

Some say watching MTV all day can make you "pretty sick". Certainly, psychiatric nurses from the Living Mental Institute in Connecticut once noted: "we have observed ill effects on certain of our patients as a result of watching MTV". There are also many reported cases where acts of violence, self-inflicted or otherwise, are linked directly to videos, said to have been "copycat" acts.

"That's a difficult one for us," Hansen says. "Because, again, we have no input into the making of a video. But if I play that video and it's got strobing in it and that flips some kid out, it's my problem. And we did make that mistake ourselves. And as for acts of violence, that, too, is a problem we're totally aware of. Though the cause-effect link has never been proven. Yet Europe actually has more of a problem if we show, say, a kid with a Stanley knife than if we show something America, for example, would regard as too risque, sexually."

Seemingly even more problematic for Brent Hansen is the suggestion that record companies "control" MTV: in the US, at least four major record labels are said to operate a pay-to-play policy. "I pay money," Hansen replies, almost angrily. "For every video played, money goes to publishing. The only money that comes to us from record companies is if they choose to advertise with us during the commercial breaks. So they don't control MTV. We make the decision whether we play a video or not. They can't say `we spent a lot of money on a video and it's going to look great on your show'. Absolutely not." But isn't it true that if, for example, a newspaper gives favourable coverage to an artist their record label will be more inclined to pay for advertising space? Surely a similar "understanding" exists between record companies and MTV?

"The MTV philosophy on that is, if we've agreed to play a video we're into it. And if a presenter doesn't want to say something nice about it, you keep it away from their proximity. We will not slag off a video. Nor will we slag off an artist," says Hansen. "But we try, very hard, to be independent. That is absolutely crucial. For example, is there any EMI artist on the awards show this year? No. And they probably feel hard done-by. Because every label wants their artists on this show. Yet we make our decisions based on how our year has been on the channel. And, as I say, if a certain artist isn't being played on MTV there are plenty of opportunities to buy advertising space."

So MTV is in a no-lose situation. That might explain why it's estimated to have made worldwide profits of $360 million in 1998. However, a decade earlier, this question of corporate control over rock'n'roll was crystallised, for many people, when MTV refused to play Neil Young's video for This Note's For You. Why? Because he said in the song, "ain't singing for Pepsi/Ain't singing for Coke/I don't sing for nobody/Makes me look like a joke". Wouldn't this imply MTV is "in the pocket" of advertisers?

"MTV Europe played that video! And there was no pressure on us from the US not to play it!" Hansen responds, smiling. "And, okay, let me make this clear. Yes, we have a responsibility to record companies and to our advertisers but we are not `in the pockets' of anyone. Whereas some of our opposition - video channels in Europe - are actually owned by record companies. Viva, in Germany, is owned by Warners, Sony, Polygram, EMI. That's what we're competing against. But MTV Europe is owned 100 per cent by Viacom, our parent company in America. And we are highly profitable, which gives us the kind of relative autonomy other music video channels, as I say, don't have. And I mean it when I say we fight fiercely to hold on to that kind of independence."

Hansen, a 44-year-old New Zealander with a university degree in History and English, also seems to mean it when he says he's "highly sensitive" to the accusation that MTV is "an imperialistic tool" of the US. Indeed, he claims that when MTV America originally suggested a 75 per cent American music, 25 per cent European music mix for MTV Europe, he rejected the idea.

"I come from a smaller country than Ireland. I know all about cultural imperialism," he explains. "And though I know I'm going to be seen as an `imperialist' because I belong to a brand name like MTV, I believe in supporting local markets, not patronising them. Feel we should broadcast from the perspective of someone in any given territory, reflect their culture, rather than the brand imperialising downward.

"In Italy, for example, the mix is more than 50 per cent of their own music. Irish music probably has had, over the past few years, a higher play-rate on MTV Europe, than British music. Compare Steps and Boyzone. Steps could exist without MTV. Boyzone are an MTV act. They've utilised the space from the start. And what Boyzone have done does sum it all up. It really is a matter of understanding the `beast', and using it to your own advantage."

Nevertheless, when rockmusic-loving Hansen talks about "helping to migrate acts across territories", and says that "new artists add value to our brand", surely even he sees this is purely product placement-speak? Meaning he must, in the end, side with John Lack, rather than Mike Nesmith, and regard music videos as mere commercials rather than art?

"I do. And I think most artists would agree with that, don't you?" he concludes. "It's a business more than anything else. But the point is that, as with any of these criticisms people raise about MTV they, themselves, do have the final say in the matter. As with all TV stations, they can just turn the `beast' off."

The MTV Music Awards take place on Thursday November 11th.