to be merely unpopular when defending bush in the midst of the seething propaganda might not be so bad. i remember a time when attacking bush in the midst of the seething propaganda rendered one unpatriotic.
While true, this statement isn't relevant to the argument.
regarding the interviewer; could be a cultural thing, to europeans, journalists are expected to ask pertinent questions regardless of who is being interviewed. what's the use of interviews if he is answering a list of scripted questions? if he couldnt answer her questions then he couldnt possibly have looked at the big picture and it's consequences, as required by a world leader making irrevocable global decisions.
I'm not referring specifically to the questions, but the fact that the interviewer would pose a question and then quickly cut off the subject from responding. This is a tactic on the interviewer's part designed to slant the interview to the interviewer's point of view. Had it been me being interviewed, I would've walked out, or worse. I will say that I've only read the interview. I might have a different opinion once I see it.
if you get a chance to see it, i would like to hear your opinion. i know there's different tactics interviewers can use, but i honestly just see a interviewer who starts out asking her questions and is initially trying to wait for the answer while he goes on rambling sidetracks without really saying anything. halfway into the interview, she begin to realize he is not adressing her question, she then tries to cut him off to ask the question again but to no avail. i also didnt really see her as a particular aggressive interviewer, not with european standards anyhow. by the end of it, she looked mostly resigned...
While true, this statement isn't relevant to the argument.
regarding the interviewer;
could be a cultural thing, to europeans, journalists are expected to ask pertinent questions regardless of who is being interviewed. what's the use of interviews if he is answering a list of scripted questions?
if he couldnt answer her questions then he couldnt possibly have looked at the big picture and it's consequences, as required by a world leader making irrevocable global decisions.
I'm not referring specifically to the questions, but the fact that the interviewer would pose a question and then quickly cut off the subject from responding. This is a tactic on the interviewer's part designed to slant the interview to the interviewer's point of view. Had it been me being interviewed, I would've walked out, or worse. I will say that I've only read the interview. I might have a different opinion once I see it.
Reply
i also didnt really see her as a particular aggressive interviewer, not with european standards anyhow. by the end of it, she looked mostly resigned...
Reply
Leave a comment