Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News" channel.

  1.  @jalalhussain2538  Pfft, okay. Lets just ignore the blatant hypocrisy getting called out several times by Neil.
    38
  2. They're called reactionaries. Ben's entire career is just being a reactionary.
    31
  3.  @emeraldmasta7752  Himself you mean?
    25
  4.  @moonlily1  That and Ben was obviously trying to bail from the questions by attacking Neil. it doesn't matter what Neil's own beliefs are, you don't get to just attack your interviewer and declare victory.
    23
  5.  @chilldude1883  Ben could have just answered the questions rather than attacking the interviewer. Being aggressive doesn't change the questions.
    22
  6.  @Challengery86  No, it doesn't. Your inability to understand the difference between Andrew Neil's personal beliefs and the devil's advocate style questions he asks is exactly why the likes of you and Benny boy can't actually keep a solid argument. Instead of attacking his character attack the arguments, because his personal beliefs are completely irrelevant to the points being made.
    21
  7.  @chilldude1883  Ah yes, telling people you've never heard of them like you're 5 and losing an argument is akin to critical questions on your ideology.
    18
  8.  @Collabcreatemarketing  That's the issue with Shapiro. He IS well informed, but the positions he holds are poisonous, and the way he argues is dishonest.
    15
  9. The funniest part is he's lying. All of the titles are on Ben's channel.
    10
  10. Honestly, even then he relies on an uneven format, cutting people's mics and misrepresenting their views in long monologues that just touch on a bunch of extremist points.
    9
  11.  @staclips3375  He had nothing to say because attacking an interviewer is meaningless. The questions aren't going to evaporate just because you attack Neil.
    8
  12.  @richardsmart827  Turned his brains to haggis.
    8
  13.  Blood for Dracula  If it is a mass genocide program they're doing a terrible job.
    8
  14.  @malka2851  Cope.
    8
  15. Actually it's because Ben openly admitted that he lost, and anyone with half a brain can plainly see he lost. Maybe the accent impresses you, but Ben so obviously lost here it's not even a question.
    7
  16. You do know how interviews work don't you?
    6
  17. *inept
    6
  18.  @Reactivate100  No, they aren't. Heart inflammation and blood clots aren't even from the same type of vaccines, but covid causes all of them, and at a minimum 10 times more often than the vaxes. The organ damage issues are at a rate of 7% with the virus, but could you imagine the outrage if Pfizer or AZ caused organ damage at even a hundredth as often? In fact, heart inflammation is so common in covid cases that they find it in 60% of autopsies and 30% of athletes. Oh, and they kill the animals right after they finish the study, so of course all the ferrets died, they culled them. That's how science works.
    6
  19. If you think that then even Ben disagrees with you.
    6
  20. You're right, you are confused.
    6
  21.  @erjoh305  It's designed to present an opposing viewpoint, one which Ben could have easily responded to. It's a perfectly neutral style of journalism.
    6
  22.  @easymoney8535  Exactly. People fail to recognise that the unvaccinated in Israel, especially among the more likely to be hospitalised crowd over 60, is over 90%. That means from the stats provided along being unvaxed is 6 time more dangerous at a minimum.
    6
  23. Um no. Ben wanted a podium to dictate the conversation from with a few softball questions thrown in. He was not prepared for someone to actually ask challenging questions.
    5
  24. It's an interview, why would he debate?
    5
  25. It's an interview, their opinion is irrelevant.
    5
  26. Hate to break it to you, but Andrew Neil is a well known and well respected right-wing journalist. Of course, if you think context is the issue then why not let us know the context. Ben openly lied several times in this interview, including in this very interview.
    5
  27.  @DavidBrown-zs1ic  He wasn't. He was presenting Ben with an opposing opinion that he could respond to. This is explained twice in the interview.
    5
  28. Blood clots, heart inflammation and permanent organ damage are all symptoms of covid. In fact blood clots happen in covid patients 39 times more than they do in AZ vaccine recipients. AZ also doesn't cause heart inflammation.
    5
  29.  @philip8888  Ben literally apologised to Andrew. Andrew Neil is not pushing a left-wing ideology here, he is playing Devil's Advocate, presenting counterpoints to Ben's beliefs to give him a chance to defend his viewpoints, and actually make a strong case as he does so. the issue is that Ben is a reactionary and doesn't know how to do this. Andrew even left the BBC to work at a new right-wing news network some time after this interview. Ben was visibly angry. They are not leading questions, they are difficult questions, and Andrew always interrupts people when they avoid the question.
    5
  30.  @williamturkewitschturkewit1549  Then why didn't Ben respond by explaining the context? Why didn't he explain his position? Why did he fold like a deck chair the moment he was asked anything even resembling critique?
    5
  31. Why would he answer him? He's an interviewer, not a debate opponent. Ben also did not answer honestly several times.
    5
  32.  @walterrussell779  I don't think you know what Devil's advocate actually is do you.
    5
  33.  @greyguy.960  Just not true. Ofcom found that the BBC is actually very good at staying non-biased, but the audience perception of bias is the problem, which makes sense when you think about it. People on the left thing the BBC is right wing, and people on the right think it is left wing. The truth is, quite literally, somewhere in the middle. The issue is also compounded by the idea that the "middle" is a moving target, as general views of the whole country shift over time. regardless, calling the BBC left wing is a joke, especially when it comes to Andrew Neil. In fact, your use of Naga Munchetty as an example, when her case has been put in direct contrast to Neil, who has publicly not just expressed political stances, but also personal attacks on social media, only to be defended by the Beeb. The stats show they have been in the centre for years, so stop making things up.
    5
  34. So when Ben is asked about multiple topics from his book, even being directly quoted it, while also being asked about how those topics contrast his past statements and ideas, you don't think that's relevant? The fact that Ben didn't even realise that his book has been quoted at him several times is already an issue. He wrote it didn't he? Ben would never get a ghost writer to make a quick buck would he?
    5
  35. Tell me you know nothing without telling me.
    5
  36. Sounds like an opinion.
    5
  37. This isn't even a debate, and Ben made himself look bad. Calling the BBC left-wing just shows how right-wing you are.
    5
  38.  @t23001  He got ruined because he couldn't answer basic questions because they sounded mean. Especially the ones the very blatantly outlined his own hypocrisy.
    5
  39.  @randysmith1723  It's funny you talk about context, because Ben even put the tweets in context, and showed they are 100% correct. I mean seriously, what even could be the context given that Ben openly states he holds the views, or straight up lies about the context as was pointed out. As for why they used old tweets, it was in contrast to his book. Ben was questioned on statements and views from his book, and his previous statements and actions are used to contrast his book. It shows how he's a massive hypocrite. Ben did actually give an honest take when asked about Trump. Imagine if he answered all of the questions this well. He would however reveal himself to be a total loon. Neil has dozens of interviews challenging liberals. If you think otherwise then you're a total joke. Neil himself is a Conservative after all.
    4
  40. Ah yes the BBC propaganda of...reading someone's own book back to them and watching their entire worldview fall to pieces.
    4
  41. Ben isn't that old is he? I mean, I get when he lied about his own Youtube channel, contradicted himself between his viewpoints and his book, attacked the interviewer, and then running away was all a bit dramatic, but old seems a bit harsh.
    4
  42. Ah yes, Andrew Neil, the standard bearer of the left wing. Maybe Ben is just struggling with difficult questions.
    4
  43. Then why did Ben tweet saying he got "DESTROYED" right after this interview? Maybe you just don't understand the issues here, or how Ben's inability to really answer is an issue.
    4
  44. Except the journalist is a Conservative, a pretty famous one at that, and the questions don't change regardless of any bias, be it real or perceived.
    4
  45. He's not even a leftist lol. Shapiro got schooled so hard he went to twitter and immediately admitted defeat.
    4
  46. Yes, how dare an interviewer challenge someone's position and give them an open opportunity to explain themselves. He should just bend over backwards instead. Why not bring out a pedestal so Ben can really get his say in completely unimpeded. Andrew Neil is a strong and challenging interviewer who works to directly counter his interviewees beliefs, to either expose flaws or to give them an opportunity to explain themselves. This is not disrespectful. Attacking the interviewer however is disrepectful.
    4
  47. It's an interview, why would he answer his questions?
    4
  48. Pretty sure Ben was the one running away in this one.
    4
  49. You didn't. Obviously you can't distinguish between questions and opinions. Andrew Neil is famous for asking difficult, Devil's advocate style questions. Between Ben, and apparently you, not understanding that, and Ben being shown to outright contradict himself in his book and his social media presence, it's really no wonder he ran from the interviewer.
    4
  50. He wrote a book about positive political discourse and then is surprised when people bring up his history of political discourse.
    4