This wasn't a rant about the whole issue of facial concealment, although I may well post one soon. Rather, it was about the approach in this instance. The question of whether people should be encouraged to show their faces to give additional information is a much more complex one.
The interviewee in this case was doing very well indeed, imo. She was polite and attempted to answer their questions accurately and moderately without allowing them to pull her off course by mis-representing what she had just said. I have seen some interviewees being very offended and self-righteous and I don't think it's particularly helpful.
My problem was with the refusal to understand that, for some groups, religion cannot, will not and (in their opinion) should not be separated from the rest of their lives. How can anyone claim to be attempting to understand a different social group when refusing to accept that they may have a different paradigm? It's not as if it's particularly complicated to understand that different people may take certain issues more or less seriously than we do now. Even if they can't understand someone else's viewpoint emotionally, interviewers should at least respect the fact that other viewpoints exist and that they can't force their paradigm onto others.
Appreciate your first, but it gave me a chance to have what passes for a rant about it without writing a post myself ;)
And as to the other, I've just been listening to a discussion on R4 about Womans hour and their editorial decisions. I've also just read Andrew Marr on the topic as well. Television News, and indeed print media, need sensation to attract viewers. It's not their job to be sensitive to cultural issues :(
The interviewee in this case was doing very well indeed, imo. She was polite and attempted to answer their questions accurately and moderately without allowing them to pull her off course by mis-representing what she had just said. I have seen some interviewees being very offended and self-righteous and I don't think it's particularly helpful.
My problem was with the refusal to understand that, for some groups, religion cannot, will not and (in their opinion) should not be separated from the rest of their lives. How can anyone claim to be attempting to understand a different social group when refusing to accept that they may have a different paradigm? It's not as if it's particularly complicated to understand that different people may take certain issues more or less seriously than we do now. Even if they can't understand someone else's viewpoint emotionally, interviewers should at least respect the fact that other viewpoints exist and that they can't force their paradigm onto others.
Reply
And as to the other, I've just been listening to a discussion on R4 about Womans hour and their editorial decisions. I've also just read Andrew Marr on the topic as well. Television News, and indeed print media, need sensation to attract viewers. It's not their job to be sensitive to cultural issues :(
Reply
Leave a comment