3 ms·

You talked about giving people "air time", implying the context of an interview or debate. you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both.

by Chris2048 6y ago

You talked about giving people "air time", implying the context of an interview or debate. you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both. I think there is leeway for a host to chase participants who give inadequate or evasive answers, for a variety of reasons, but there is a limit. At the end of the day, you can't make anyone say what they don't want to, but you can make it obvious when they refuse to do so. Consider the role of the host in BBC Question Time, for example.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
> you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both. I think this is excessively narrow. I will admit that I wouldn't rate most journalists as among the experts in the fields that they report on, and I'm not sure they would either. But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer. If you're hosting a discussion or even just interviewing, I find it entirely legitimate to interject and say "wait, wait, you just made a claim that nobody in your field agrees with, how do you justify that?" or something equivalent. Until very, very recently, it has been extremely hard to find US journalists that will behave this way. A few have done it with respect to election claims and COVID19 related issues. It is the exception rather than the rule. Treating interviewees with respect does not preclude treating the audience with respect, and if the interviewee says something the interviewer knows to be nonsense, or at least questionable, it is out of respect for the audience that they should "participate".
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer. I agree, but they never appear to be engaging in advocacy but rather not letting their interviewee get away with lying or deflection. Notably, I would like to see a reporter challenge some of the BLM narrative—at least ask the obvious questions, like “how do we know the police shooting racial disparity is racism and not crime rates or some other factor?” Virtually no journalists touched this issue, and it makes them look like they’re not only partisan, but that the movement itself needs high-profile protection from even the faintest of scrutiny. Small wonder people feel at liberty to find their own “truth sources” when the established ones appear to be dishonest.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Saying "wait, wait, .." is entirely legitimate hosting. Talking about "fields" however only covers academics/experts. in politics, I wouldn't give peer-support so much gravity, especially since GOP and Dems appear to maintain different sets of "facts".
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Sure. But this where we get back to "aggressive" interviewing technique. Suppose someone makes the claim that tax cuts for the rich, or for capital gains, improves the economy. Journalist/host says "what evidence do you have of that?". Politician/pundit says something misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably false. This is the crux point. The journalist/host can at this point either (a) move on (b) drill down into the claim made by the politician/pundit. But (b) will be clearly seen as oppositional by both the politician/pundit and by the audience (and correctly so, because that's the whole point). In the current media landscape, this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all, and will be described as "confrontational" and "partisan".
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      I disagree, (b) may or may not be seen as oppositional, depending entirely on what the issue is. Misleading statements can be followed with questions seeking clarification. Irrelevant statements can be followed with questions asking relevance. Demonstrably false statements will require the host to demonstrate the falsehood, otherwise they are not so. At least, questions can be asked clarifying the details of the statement. > this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all so be it. If politicians don't want to look bad, they won't. But they can also lose face if they only accept softballs. asking pertinent is not aggressive, nor does it disgust audiences. The problem, as I see it, are that journalists are mistaken wrt to what the facts are or at least what can be demonstrated), and when questions really are pertinent. A host can be as confrontational as they want, so long as they are bi-partisan (i.e fair); It's only when they are not that their manner becomes an issue to an audience. I often see aggressive questions asked, then don't really serve a useful purpose other than give someone a hard time, e.g loaded questions.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

> you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both. I think this is excessively narrow. I will admit that I wouldn't rate most journalists as among the experts in the fields that they report on, and I'm not sure they would either. But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer. If you're hosting a discussion or even just interviewing, I find it entirely legitimate to interject and say "wait, wait, you just made a claim that nobody in your field agrees with, how do you justify that?" or something equivalent. Until very, very recently, it has been extremely hard to find US journalists that will behave this way. A few have done it with respect to election claims and COVID19 related issues. It is the exception rather than the rule. Treating interviewees with respect does not preclude treating the audience with respect, and if the interviewee says something the interviewer knows to be nonsense, or at least questionable, it is out of respect for the audience that they should "participate".

throwaway894345 6y ago
> But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer. I agree, but they never appear to be engaging in advocacy but rather not letting their interviewee get away with lying or deflection. Notably, I would like to see a reporter challenge some of the BLM narrative—at least ask the obvious questions, like “how do we know the police shooting racial disparity is racism and not crime rates or some other factor?” Virtually no journalists touched this issue, and it makes them look like they’re not only partisan, but that the movement itself needs high-profile protection from even the faintest of scrutiny. Small wonder people feel at liberty to find their own “truth sources” when the established ones appear to be dishonest.
Chris2048 6y ago
Saying "wait, wait, .." is entirely legitimate hosting. Talking about "fields" however only covers academics/experts. in politics, I wouldn't give peer-support so much gravity, especially since GOP and Dems appear to maintain different sets of "facts".
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Sure. But this where we get back to "aggressive" interviewing technique. Suppose someone makes the claim that tax cuts for the rich, or for capital gains, improves the economy. Journalist/host says "what evidence do you have of that?". Politician/pundit says something misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably false. This is the crux point. The journalist/host can at this point either (a) move on (b) drill down into the claim made by the politician/pundit. But (b) will be clearly seen as oppositional by both the politician/pundit and by the audience (and correctly so, because that's the whole point). In the current media landscape, this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all, and will be described as "confrontational" and "partisan".
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I disagree, (b) may or may not be seen as oppositional, depending entirely on what the issue is. Misleading statements can be followed with questions seeking clarification. Irrelevant statements can be followed with questions asking relevance. Demonstrably false statements will require the host to demonstrate the falsehood, otherwise they are not so. At least, questions can be asked clarifying the details of the statement. > this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all so be it. If politicians don't want to look bad, they won't. But they can also lose face if they only accept softballs. asking pertinent is not aggressive, nor does it disgust audiences. The problem, as I see it, are that journalists are mistaken wrt to what the facts are or at least what can be demonstrated), and when questions really are pertinent. A host can be as confrontational as they want, so long as they are bi-partisan (i.e fair); It's only when they are not that their manner becomes an issue to an audience. I often see aggressive questions asked, then don't really serve a useful purpose other than give someone a hard time, e.g loaded questions.