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

  1.  @wjsj69  Nope. Critical interviews exist. Andrew Neil is actually doing the exact opposite of trying to entertain, he is using Ben's own words against him. That's a solid interview. It's also anything but cheap.
    1
  2.  @wjsj69  So you didn't learn that Ben is both a massive hypocrite and a child? You obviously watched the wrong interview.
    1
  3.  @wjsj69  So you disagree with what you literally watched...sounds like you're the one with the opinion.
    1
  4.  @wjsj69  Not sure why you're leaving now. Andrew Neil pulled statements from Ben's book, directly contrasted them to his own behaviour, and opened the floor up for Ben to respond to these glaring contradictions when thought meets reason. Instead, Ben decided to change the wording of the questions to better suit himself, fail to answer these better worded questions, then attack the interviewer. Ben wasn't just flummoxed at the style of interview or the abrasiveness of the interviewer, he was stuck fast when his own statements failed to line up with his actions. You can't call political discourse too aggressive while constantly putting out videos attacking people for political reasons, while also lying about said videos. You can't claim that Republicans have great new ideas, while also claiming that Republicans still haven't decided if they need to address climate change, and that women being threatened with decades of prison time is a great new idea. Ben actually did a pretty good job when answering about Trump and Biden. He also did a good job of explaining his position on those people. Imagine if he answered the whole interview this way.
    1
  5. It's not even a debate. You can't destroy an interviewer. Ben attacked someone rather than adequately explaining himself.
    1
  6. Weird that you think Ben Shapiro at his finest is when he's backed into a corner, failing to answer questions, being shown to be a massing hypocrite and attacking an interviewer. The idea that the BBC would make money off this interview, or off any interview for that matter, is actually ridiculous.
    1
  7.  @slapeters2004  Think it all you like, you're wrong. They are not "gotcha" questions, they are difficult questions, designed to give Ben ample opportunity to respond to even his harshest criticisms. Ben responses were so terrible because he failed to really grasp the true meaning of the questions, meaning he ended up just arguing with Andrew Neil instead of actually answering the questions. You can complain about a spin if you want, but taking Ben's own book and then contrasting it with his own actions is not spin, it's fact. If Ben has answered all of the questions the way he did when answering the questions about Trump then this would have been a much better look for him, but instead he just whined about not having a podium or softball questions. The idea that the BBC gets money from interviews like this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Beeb actually works. They don't get ad revenue, and interviews like this earn them nothing.
    1
  8.  @billjim334  10th of May 2019 ".@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro! So that's what that feels like ;) Broke my own rule, and wasn't properly prepared. I've addressed every single issue he raised before; see below. Still, it's Neil 1, Shapiro 0. "
    1
  9. Weird you say it was out of context, when in this exact interview Ben admits that he still holds these views, and they are 100% in context.
    1
  10.  @jaredphillips4347  He tweeted it, go check yourself. “As I’m not familiar with him or his work, I misinterpreted his antagonism as political Leftism (he termed the pro-life position in America “barbaric”) – and that was apparently inaccurate. For that I apologize.”
    1
  11. It's people like you who make me ashamed to be English.
    1
  12. 10% of those survivors are long-haulers, and 70% of those have organ damage. 25% of long-haulers have multiple organ damage. But sure, they lived.
    1
  13. Republican children having a tantrum while openly yelling their bigotry?
    1
  14. Ah yes, the cherry-picked topics...from Ben's book that he was there to discuss. This was a great interview from Andrew Neil, and Ben's inability to answer half the questions is only his own fault.
    1
  15. His entire career is grilling politicians and political figures. Literally nobody cares if he's mean to them, because it's the only way to get a straight answer out of them.
    1
  16.  @drewlastnayme6437  If Ben's own statements don't match his personal views then why make those statements. Wouldn't it be nice if someone could interview him and present him with those statements, then give him an open opportunity to respond, explaining how those statements either do or don't fit his personal standpoint...oh wait.
    1
  17.  @drewlastnayme6437  He could have just responded. The comments were a minor victory, Ben's response was just him digging a hole.
    1
  18. Because he showed be to be a hypocrite or because he hurt your fee fees?
    1
  19. He wasn't representing his own opinions. His Devil's Advocate questions are literally designed to prompt a response.
    1
  20.  @antoniobanderas5316  They were not loaded questions. Loaded questions state an opinion as fact, while Andrew never does this. He askes suggestive questions, but gives plenty of room for refutation. The interview is unbiased because Andrew Neil is there to represent an opinion other than Ben's. A bias interview would be simply allowing Ben to talk freely without any challenge. Andrew is famous for this style of interview, so Ben had plenty of warning should he have chosen to look.
    1
  21.  @antoniobanderas5316  Tell me about it. He brought it up about 5 times throughout.
    1
  22. It's not a debate you cretin. The interviewer doesn't need to answer questions as the whole point of an interview is the interviewee is the one answering questions.
    1
  23. Keep repeating it and maybe someone will believe it.
    1
  24. Apparently it is.
    1
  25.  @lordpestoad  And then he joined a bunch of right-wing extremists on a failed channel launch, which he also then left.
    1
  26.  @lordpestoad  Watching the deprogramming of Andrew Neil was actually pretty fun. I wonder what he'll do next. Given his history it's funny to watch Ben call him left-wing.
    1
  27.  @chilldude1883  American interviewers maybe. It's completely irrelevant to anyone in the UK.
    1
  28. There is no agenda. The questions are all about Ben's book, why not answer them? Maybe Ben just wants a podium.
    1
  29. Then why didn't he just say that? Why did he instead get offended and not answer?
    1
  30. Anyone with a whole brain could tell that the interviewer is contrasting comments from Ben's own book with his own statements, videos and actions, to show that his ideas are entirely contradictory to his own practices. But if you really think that context can make Ben's comments look good then by all means, present the context. There is no false baseline, this is the bed Ben made, now he has to lie in it.
    1
  31. That's not how interviews work.
    1
  32. How can a parrot like you get off on calling someone a puppet?
    1
  33.  @FrozeVertex  Try watching the video. Also see Frost vs Nixon or Russel Brand on Morning Joe for what losing or winning an interview looks like for an interviewee.
    1
  34.  @FrozeVertex  When Ben openly lies then leaves after being quoted his own book, that's a loss right there.
    1
  35.  @FrozeVertex  Stay tired of explaining your lie. Ben lost hard here, just like Frost vs Nixon. If you can't see that then there really isn't any hope for you. Ben apologized to Andrew Neil on social media, saying he “misinterpreted his antagonism as political leftism”. He ended the tweet with "For that, I apologize."
    1
  36.  @FrozeVertex  "The fact or process of losing something" The interview. Next.
    1
  37.  @FrozeVertex  Except Ben set out with a specific goal in mind, which was to promote his book. To do so successfully he would need to: 1. Plug his book. 2. Come across as the sort of person you would want to buy a book from. He failed to do both of these things. He was shown to be petty and hypocritical in this interview, leading to him failing to meet his primary goals. There is a reason he publicly apologised and openly stated that he was destroyed for his performance. If you knew anything about politics then you would know that interviews are NEVER just conversations, and an interview can make or break careers. Hard to say people can't lose an interview when a bad interview can cost you an election, or million in sales, or could even put you in the path of an impeachment.
    1
  38.  @FrozeVertex  Okay fine, Ben gave a terrible interview, so bad that he tweeted an apology and then said he got destroyed by Andrew Neil, even commenting that Andrew was 1-0 over him...but he didn't lose...
    1
  39.  @FrozeVertex  That's just semantics at this point. Ben got dunked on and lost, according to...Ben actually. You're fighting a losing argument.
    1
  40. Nothing bad faith about it since it's not an argument, it's an interview. You seem to be confusing this with a debate.
    1
  41.  @JonGreen91  You mean the RDJ interview where he was promoting a movie about a man and his father, and was asked questions about his own relationship with his father and how it influenced his role? Asking people about their acting, their characters and their inspirations is completely normal when talking to actors. I get it, freaks Americans out, but we're very used to these sorts of questions. Shapiro wrote a book covering multiple topics, political discourse among other things, which is why it was brought up in this interview. Not sure why you think Ben should be allowed to preach from a podium when writing a book about how we should be nice to each other, when his own discourse is drenched in hatred and vitriol. It's just silly to claim that reviewing his own political statements is not relevant to his book...about political statements. What's next? You can't ask politicians about their voting records? Where do we draw the line?
    1
  42.  @roquesanta9769  Not pointless at all. I learned plenty about Ben and his positions.
    1
  43.  @roquesanta9769  Ben doesn't like Trump, but he is in favour of him over Democrats. He would rather have a different Republican, but has also warmed to his policies. He also thinks that the social damage done by him is finite, and electing his for a second term would not hurt our global standing. He believes in life at conception, and likes to avoid questions on how strong a punishment should be for abortion. He is both a Zionist and a gatekeeper of Judaism, believing that other non-Zionist Jews are not real Jews at all. He thinks climate change may not be a threat and is open to debate. He thinks Republicans can have a discussion about nationalism vs patriotism with a straight face. He thinks all the Dem ideas are from FDR, while also praising a bunch of Republican ideas that are even older. He lies when backed into a corner, such as the questions about his own YouTube channel. He writes about political discourse, and thinks that talking to people is grounds for good discourse, when in reality his personal rhetoric shows that talking to people doesn't stop you being divisive or having "charged language". Ben likes to act like he is an arbiter of good discourse, when in reality he is a good debater with bad intentions. He both openly stated that Arabs like to blow things up, while also backing away from his statement, showing his distinct lack of backbone when supporting his own horrific comments. Oh, and he doesn't know what an interview is.
    1
  44.  @beverleycarroll1551  So the part where he read Ben's books and contrasted it to numerous examples on Ben's Youtube, Twitter, public appearances and more makes him "unprepared"? What exactly is a "prepared" interviewer according to you?
    1
  45.  @erjoh305  Why question is? What possible difference could it make?
    1
  46.  @erjoh305  Again, Andrew Neil approaches every interview with the same Devil's advocate approach. This is also not a courtroom and not a debate, it's an interview. The interviewers stance is completely irrelevant.
    1
  47.  @erjoh305  He isn't using a shock jock approach as he is not presenting opinions in an attempt to be shocking or provocative, he is doing it to stimulate meaningful answers. It's not just professional, it gets great results. Stop acting like journalists have to bend over so far that interviewees can use their back as a podium while they ram them from behind. Journalists are allowed to ask tough questions.
    1
  48. He isn't an opinion journalist, this style of questions is normal and designed propose opposition to an argument that someone can respond to. It's not his job to answer questions, he's a journalist and the interviewer. Ben's own book constantly contradicted his own actions. He even lied about his own Youtube channel. His inability to rationalise this in the interview is his own problem. This is not a debate, it's an interview.
    1
  49. Pointing out that Ben is a hypocrite isn't tyranny you big child.
    1
  50.  @chonnerone2964  Or dead.
    1