Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Luis_GonzaIez
Talking fast isn't the issue, it's being able to actually understand the underlying issues in Ben's rhetoric.
I think you need to understand the distinction between speaking a certain way and having certain beliefs. Sure, Ben said these things a while ago, but he admits in this very interview that he still holds many of these beliefs, making them still very relevant. If your entire point is that Ben learned to stop showing how much of an extremist he is, then congratulations you managed it, but apologising for saying something offensive doesn't really matter when you still hold those beliefs.
This was a solid political interview that showed Ben to be a massive hypocrite who can't handle his own words being thrown back at him. Talks about his book, then gets annoyed when his book is looked at critically. This is not about past mistakes, as the RDJ interview was, this is about current beliefs.
And yes, Andrew Neil is know for critical political interviews with difficult questions. Something you would definitely struggle to find in the US. That's probably why you are unfamiliar with this sort of critical interview style. You would rather Ben gets thrown a softball question or two so he can stand on a podium and talk about how great he is, all while stoking extremism.
Even in the case of Krishnan Guru-Murthy, he is also known for strong political interviews, and celebrities going in and expecting TMZ style interviews with him are obviously sorely mistaken. They don't do their research and start talking to a guy known for interviewing heads of political parties, created a foreign affairs documentary, and was even on Newsnight. Honestly, watching the likes of RDJ and Tarantino walk into an interview about a movie and walk out because they get asked something difficult is pretty funny.
But I suppose that's just the problem isn't it. You're so used to softball baby questions that anything critical looks like an attack to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious
Since you've decided to display your complete ignorance yet again I suppose I'll give you my full undivided attention so that we can really nail down your exact issues.
So let's start at the beginning shall we:
"So, right off the get go, hostile questions with clear bias in favor of one side of the political spectrum."
It doesn't matter the whole point of doing this is to present a point to be responded to. Who the point "belongs" to is irrelevant, as is your claims of hostility. All that matters is the content of the question.
"That's not playing devils advocate, that's not being neutral, that's not being a journalist...that's being an activist."
It actually is playing Devil's Advocate. Andrew presented an opposing opinion to Ben's in an effort to give him something to contend with. Balancing out the opinion is the essence of neutrality. And getting someone to answer hard questions absolutely IS journalism. Would you rather he rolled over and let Ben talk about his book with absolutely zero challenge to his points? What point would there be? They may as well just shove a poster of his book on the screen and call it a day, would be much cheaper. Also, the idea that Andrew is an activist even though he does not share the sentiment of the vast majority of the questions he poses is pretty hilarious.
"You don't get a sense of hostility from someone playing devil's advocate...you wouldn't have sentences directly accusing Conservatives of wanting to adopt policies that come straight out of the dark ages."
Why not? Political points that challenge your side of the aisle will always come off as hostile. All Ben had to do was explain that his side is not in the Dark Ages, and in fact his opponents are. That's it. Disagreeing with the way something is said doesn't change that the response is very easy to present, and that the question prompts a solid answer. Ben misunderstands this, as you do as well.
"When one plays devil advocate, one clearly identifies that they are playing devil's advocate."
Wrong. This is simply categorically false, and the main source of your misunderstanding. Literally all you are doing is expressing opinions that you do not hold yourself, and that contrast the opinions of others. That's it. There is no requirement to announce that you are playing Devil's Advocate, especially not from Andrew Neil, who does this in literally every interview.
"He presented his question very nearly as a chastisement, making the implication that no good ideas come from the Conservative side of things."
"Very near" and "implication" are the two phrases you should focus on here. You openly admit that he did not in fact chastise or state anything, he merely implied it.
"It would be like me asking you,"Leftists don't read the full response before forming a counter argument, which Conservatives seem to always seem to, so why should I engage with you?""
This is you being obtuse. You are also making an absolute statement here. Andrew is very careful to use terms like "seem like" when putting questions to people, while you went all out with a claim. That's the difference between a tough questions and a loaded one. This also obvious shot was the childishness I was referring to.
Which is why when you say:
"Funny how when it's happening to you, you can see it for what it is"
It's because you failed to grasp the concept.
"In every example of someone playing devil's advocate, the fact that they are is made obvious. What the interviewer was doing was not playing devil's advocate, but attempting to catch Mr. Shapiro in a 'Gotcha' moment, which in turned laid the biases of the interviewer bare."
Wrong, wrong and wrong, as explained above.
So there you go. Enjoy going back to watching softball interviews on Fox.
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious Actually in my replies I posted pretty much the exact definition of Devil's Advocate:
"If you play devil's advocate in a discussion or debate, you express an opinion which you may not agree with but which is very different from what other people have been saying, in order to make the argument more interesting."
"someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail"
"To argue against or attack an idea, argument, or proposition—even if one is in favor of it—for the sake of debate or to further examine its strength, validity, or details. Refers to the "Advocatus Diaboli," a person employed by the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint (and therefore help determine if that person is truly worthy of sainthood)."
See how none of these definitions require you to announce it? In fact most people who do this announce it after the fact, if at all.
But sure, post me the exact definition that shows that it's only valid if you let people know first, because that changes the arguments being presented doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1