• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The idiocy of the reaction to someone challenging a person held in high regard.

Axulus

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,154
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
So more than ever, I'm seeing an extreme negative reaction to an interviewer who challenges and probes an interviewee in a very direct and forceful manner. Sometimes the way the interviewer asks the question is more from a devil's advocate postion, trying to steelman the opposite view. Sometimes the interviewer's reasoning isn't great. Imagine a creationist asking Richard Dawkins a question about evolution.

One example comes to mind: Don Lemon interviewing Elon Musk. Sure, one can say that Lemon had an agenda, but who cares? What matters is how well can Musk actually defend his position when challenged. Hopefully we can learn something in the process. And if Lemon's reasoning behind the question is flawed, all the more easier for Musk to refute it. But no! How dare Lemon ask flawed/biased/poorly reasoned questions. He has such an obvios agenda! I mean, like what the hell? What a bunch of snowflakes reacting this way!

Contrast this to the Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman approach, which is essentially just lobbing softball after softball at their guests, letting them speak at length, and rarely challenging them in any meaningful way. For me, this is intellectually boring and lazy. Rarely, if ever, do I learn about any counterperspectives to the guest's views, and how easy they are to refute (or not).

Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
 
jonatha said:
Axulus said:
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
Because interviewees will show up for the former but not for the latter and will suffer no consequences in doing so.
Click to expand...
That addresses the supply side of the equation, but not the demand side. Why is the demand for such interviews (seemingly) so low? Or maybe I'm wrong here, a lot of people will complain about such an interview but still watch it, but even then, why such a negative reaction?
 
Axulus said:
jonatha said:
Axulus said:
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
Because interviewees will show up for the former but not for the latter and will suffer no consequences in doing so.
Click to expand...
That addresses the supply side of the equation, but not the demand side. Why is the demand for such interviews (seemingly) so low? Or maybe I'm wrong here, a lot of people will complain about such an interview but still watch it, but even then, why such a negative reaction?
Click to expand...
Most of the people watching an interview with Elon Musk will be Elon Musk fans. When an interviewer challenges Musk's position, they are also challenging the audience. If the interviewer succeeds in making Musk look stupid, then it's embarrassing and uncomfortable for the people.

So the majority of an interview's potential audience will be people who want the interviewee to serve up some soft fruit.

I don't remember a time when it was any different.
 
These types of softball interviews must be appealing to the audience. Why else do them? If the goal is to expand the number of listeners/viewers to then be more attractive to advertisers to ultimately make more money, then the focus must be on giving the people what they want. Or has the model changed?
I'd like to hear probing questions with honest and direct answers. If such a place exists and I get wind of it, I'll check it out. What I'm not going to do is waste my time watching/listening to him, her, and the other guy, hoping to happen on a journalist worthy of the name and interviewees of integrity.
Life is too short to sort through the mountain of shit the media has become. There's plenty of people out there to do it for me.
 
I think Musk is a special case as he has a cult following. You can't remotely criticize the guy. Heck, you see the Cyber Truck, if Ford came out with it, they'd laughed at Ford... Musk comes out with it and he is a bloody genius! All trucks will look like that!
TV and credit cards said:
These types of softball interviews must be appealing to the audience. Why else do them?
Click to expand...
Rogan? He isn't that smart.
TV and credit cards said:
I'd like to hear probing questions with honest and direct answers. If such a place exists and I get wind of it, I'll check it out. What I'm not going to do is waste my time watching/listening to him, her, and the other guy, hoping to happen on a journalist worthy of the name and interviewees of integrity.
Click to expand...
Problem with Musk is he is always marketing and he always overshoots, so you never quite know what he is really thinking or if he has no clue at all. Or whether that is what it takes to get private investment into your companies.
TV and credit cards said:
Life is too short to sort through the mountain of shit the media has become. There's plenty of people out there to do it for me.
Click to expand...
People seem to only want to adore or destroy.
 
Axulus said:
So more than ever, I'm seeing an extreme negative reaction to an interviewer who challenges and probes an interviewee in a very direct and forceful manner. Sometimes the way the interviewer asks the question is more from a devil's advocate postion, trying to steelman the opposite view. Sometimes the interviewer's reasoning isn't great. Imagine a creationist asking Richard Dawkins a question about evolution.

One example comes to mind: Don Lemon interviewing Elon Musk. Sure, one can say that Lemon had an agenda, but who cares? What matters is how well can Musk actually defend his position when challenged. Hopefully we can learn something in the process. And if Lemon's reasoning behind the question is flawed, all the more easier for Musk to refute it. But no! How dare Lemon ask flawed/biased/poorly reasoned questions. He has such an obvios agenda! I mean, like what the hell? What a bunch of snowflakes reacting this way!

Contrast this to the Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman approach, which is essentially just lobbing softball after softball at their guests, letting them speak at length, and rarely challenging them in any meaningful way. For me, this is intellectually boring and lazy. Rarely, if ever, do I learn about any counterperspectives to the guest's views, and how easy they are to refute (or not).

Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
Like so many forms of behavior that were formerly regarded as boorish, stupid and bellicose, attacking the interviewer became “the way to go” when Trump’s idiots expressed their ecstasy, after he responded to an on-point question with “you’re a bad reporter”.
That remains the template. Even for the “other side”.
It’s a pity - no, a travesty. The delighted response of trumpsuckers says “We don’t want discourse, we want someone to tell us what to think and when to think it.” And that is what they want.
 
You could say that Youtuber Thunderf00t is obsessed, but I like his takedowns of Musk's pie in the sky bullshit, vaporware projects.
 
bigfield said:
Axulus said:
jonatha said:
Axulus said:
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
Because interviewees will show up for the former but not for the latter and will suffer no consequences in doing so.
Click to expand...
That addresses the supply side of the equation, but not the demand side. Why is the demand for such interviews (seemingly) so low? Or maybe I'm wrong here, a lot of people will complain about such an interview but still watch it, but even then, why such a negative reaction?
Click to expand...
Most of the people watching an interview with Elon Musk will be Elon Musk fans. When an interviewer challenges Musk's position, they are also challenging the audience. If the interviewer succeeds in making Musk look stupid, then it's embarrassing and uncomfortable for the people.

So the majority of an interview's potential audience will be people who want the interviewee to serve up some soft fruit.

I don't remember a time when it was any different.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it is now, but a large % of '60 Minutes' interviews were different than the type you remember. And the audience wasn't made of fanboys of the interviewee, who would get carved like a Halloween pumpkin if they weren't prepared.
 
Axulus said:
So more than ever, I'm seeing an extreme negative reaction to an interviewer who challenges and probes an interviewee in a very direct and forceful manner. Sometimes the way the interviewer asks the question is more from a devil's advocate postion, trying to steelman the opposite view. Sometimes the interviewer's reasoning isn't great. Imagine a creationist asking Richard Dawkins a question about evolution.

One example comes to mind: Don Lemon interviewing Elon Musk. Sure, one can say that Lemon had an agenda, but who cares? What matters is how well can Musk actually defend his position when challenged. Hopefully we can learn something in the process. And if Lemon's reasoning behind the question is flawed, all the more easier for Musk to refute it. But no! How dare Lemon ask flawed/biased/poorly reasoned questions. He has such an obvios agenda! I mean, like what the hell? What a bunch of snowflakes reacting this way!

Contrast this to the Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman approach, which is essentially just lobbing softball after softball at their guests, letting them speak at length, and rarely challenging them in any meaningful way. For me, this is intellectually boring and lazy. Rarely, if ever, do I learn about any counterperspectives to the guest's views, and how easy they are to refute (or not).

Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
In case you haven't noticed, the political climate in the US is pretty tense right now. That may have something to do with why many people prefer the Joe Rogan Lex Friedman approach. It is not as challenging for the guests but they can still get their point across in a more tactful exchange. In a better world 2 differing views should be able to voice their opinion without getting mad each other, censoring voices, or talking over each other. But until we start acting like adults, the soft peddle interviews are probably the way to go.
 
100% agree with the OP. If I was an interviewee and wanted to get my point across, I would most certainly want the interviewer to toss the main arguments against my position at me so I can point out their flaws.

Unless of course I was an idiot.
 
RVonse said:
Axulus said:
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
Click to expand...
In case you haven't noticed, the political climate in the US is pretty tense right now. That may have something to do with why many people prefer the Joe Rogan Lex Friedman approach.
Click to expand...
Who?

I prefer the NPR approach where panels of intelligent people discuss intelligently and interviews are one to one. What impresses me with the likes of Terri Gross is just how prepared she is for whomever she interviews. The amount of effort it takes to absorb so much varying info to be able to interview on whatever subject so intelligently.
RVonse said:
It is not as challenging for the guests but they can still get their point across in a more tactful exchange. In a better world 2 differing views should be able to voice their opinion without getting mad each other, censoring voices, or talking over each other. But until we start acting like adults, the soft peddle interviews are probably the way to go.
Click to expand...
This idea of propagating bullshit, misinformation, and lies with the likes of Rogan not being responsible for it, 'Oh we are just letting them talk, we aren't saying they are right' is just utter nonsense. That is as intellectually sound as "teach the controversy" argument for ID and creationism in the Biology classroom.
 
Patooka said:
Medhi Hasan was done dirty. Fuck MSNBC.
Click to expand...
Noooooooo. I love Ari Melber and he's a lovely piece of eye candy for an old woman to view, along with his interviews. I was more upset with MSNBC when they dumped Chris Matthews over minutia.

Ari Naftali Melber[1] (born March 31, 1980) is an American attorney and Emmy-winning journalist who is the chief legal correspondent for MSNBC and host of The Beat with Ari Melber.

"The Beat" is "often the most-watched show on MSNBC," the A.P. reported in 2023.

The article stated "the Emmy-winning NBC News legal analyst... brings a methodical, 'follow the facts' style to the issues he addresses."[2]

"The Beat" had the highest ratings of any show on MSNBC or CNN, "outranking everything else on MSNBC — the first time in the network’s 27 years that a show outside the prime-time window took top honors," the New York Times reported in 2023.[3]

Forbes reported The Beat was the highest rated show across all of MSNBC and CNN in January 2024,[4]and the show is widely viewed online.[5]

The Beat was "the highest-rated non-Fox News show in the demo" on cable news, AdWeek reported in November 2023.[6] Forbes [7] notes it has "MSNBC's best rating ever for the time slot."[8][9][10]

"The Beat" is one of "the most-watched news programs on cable,"Variety noted in 2023, along with Fox's "The Five."[11] AdWeek reported The Beat's ratings made it one of "most watched cable news" shows in 2022.[12][13]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom