nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't who that Kiwi guy was. Without context, it's a shocking enough interview. She's just berating him. I'd expect better on fox news.

Yes, but for NZ viewers it has context. Here's an example from Wikipedia:

In late August, Ross and his Advance NZ/NZ Public Party coalition drew controversy after they published a Facebook video alleging that the New Zealand Government had passed legislation forcing citizens to get a COVID-19 vaccine. According to Agence France-Presse's Fact Check, key parts of speeches made by other MPs were cut out and edited to distort what they were saying. The video drew controversy since it violated Parliamentary rules prohibiting the use of parliamentary debate videos for political campaigning

And then there's this:

The parliamentary service investigation substantiated a number of complaints about his behaviour towards staff, including the existence of a "toxic environment", sexualised comments towards female staff members and "lies and mind games". Further investigation also revealed the married MP entered into at least two sexual relationships with his staffers, and that Ross would target a staffer with repeated pressure, controlling behaviour, "incoherent rages" and "brutal sex"

And of course (because birds of a feather) had the 'Bad boys of Brexit' (Wigmore and Banks) on his party's election team.

For context.

[Deleted User]

I didn't who that Kiwi guy was. Without context, it's a shocking enough interview. She's just berating him. I'd expect better on fox news.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure how you took that from my post. He is in the interview - so they are already 'entertaining' his views. I'm saying that rather than just shouting him down, a journalist has a responsibility to disprove what they are saying and it was an open goal for her as there is a staggering amount of evidence available (as you acknowledged).

I took it from you saying she should have allowed him spout is Covid-denier nonsense in order that she refute it. Having him in the interview is not in any way 'entertaining' his views. She had specific questions for him, starting with asking for an apology for said peddling of disinformation. And obviously (and this is the important bit) an acknowledgment that it was disinformation and lies. That was the point of the interview and is indeed how you deal with people like him. Not (as you seem to be saying) an opportunity for him to double down on his disinfo and start a debate on it to further muddy the waters.

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

You don't 'both sides' bullsh1t. That's a mistake the BBC has made in the interests of 'balance' and all it does is give a semblance of equality and credibility to completely batsh1t nonsense. You're suggesting that the interviewer (even for a moment) entertains the notion that Covid-19 is the same as the flu. We're almost a year into the pandemic and this stuff was shot down in flames a long time ago.

I'm not sure how you took that from my post. He is in the interview - so they are already 'entertaining' his views. I'm saying that rather than just shouting him down, a journalist has a responsibility to disprove what they are saying and it was an open goal for her as there is a staggering amount of evidence available (as you acknowledged).

I'm also not saying she shouldn't have challenged him - I'm saying she should have taken it apart with something more than her held up hand.

The problem with this style of interview is that someone who is equally as misleading but better able to muddy the waters is given free reign in a fact free exchange. People getting wound up by the likes of Farage has allowed him to get away with awful lies over the years - again, here is a good example by Claire Byrne as to how you actually challenge someone in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKX70oRLws&ab_channel=RT%C3%89-IRELAND%E2%80%99SNATIONALPUBLICSERVICEMEDIA

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

As soon as Ross started talking about this just being 'another flu' the interviewer had a prime opportunity to cite any of the widely available evidence to refute this - but she just put her hand up and said "no you're not saying that".

You don't 'both sides' bullsh1t. That's a mistake the BBC has made in the interests of 'balance' and all it does is give a semblance of equality and credibility to completely batsh1t nonsense. You're suggesting that the interviewer (even for a moment) entertains the notion that Covid-19 is the same as the flu. We're almost a year into the pandemic and this stuff was shot down in flames a long time ago.

Zzippy

Yeah_Right wrote: »

She made me proud to be a kiwi with that performance.

Wait, what? You're a kiwi! I never would have guessed!

:P

Yeah_Right

She made me proud to be a kiwi with that performance.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

:rolleyes: ah lets leave it there then as youre not at all arguing the initial point.

... we'll agree to disagree on whether it was good interview or not

I've fully engaged with the initial point and despite agreeing with the interviewer 100% I'm still prepared to be objective and critical where the circumstances warrant it.

I think asking loaded questions like "is there anyone you want to apologise to" is poor journalism. I think saying things like "you sold your soul for political purposes" is poor journalism. She is right, but it's not her job as a journalist to be 'right' and just because I'm glad to see another right wing spoofer get a beating on live TV doesn't mean I'm glad to see an 'award winning' journalist turn an interview into a one sided slagging match. You either always have standards or you open yourself open to criticism.

Podge_irl wrote: »

An lack of citation does not turn something from a fact to an opinion.

Part of the problem with modern political discourse is the lack of citation to support 'opinions'. If a neutral observer watches that show they are none the wiser as no actual facts are shared or arguments supported. It was a "no sorry you are wrong" discussion and whilst that is factually correct, it serves no educational or informative service to viewers.

As soon as Ross started talking about this just being 'another flu' the interviewer had a prime opportunity to cite any of the widely available evidence to refute this - but she just put her hand up and said "no you're not saying that".

I dunno - if you want to invite crazy onto your show and then shout them down that's fine, but it seems to me like a waste of everyone's time and it isn't journalism despite the catharsis.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.

It was an interview on NZ TV for NZ viewers. The audience would have known what she referred to. Granted if you didn't know that somebody was a flat earther, that opening would have sounded like an opinion too. Wouldn't make it one though.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.

An lack of citation does not turn something from a fact to an opinion.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

'Everybody thinks' is a weak argument, hence why it's commonly used by the likes of Trump.

:rolleyes: ah lets leave it there then as youre not at all arguing the initial point.

... we'll agree to disagree on whether it was good interview or not

[Deleted User]

Everyone has been saying it

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah here :D:D

you are in "black is white" territory now.

'Everybody thinks' is a weak argument, hence why it's commonly used by the likes of Trump.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument to be honest.

ah here

:D:D

you are in "black is white" territory now.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

????

No I'm not at all.

I'm saying if you want to call yourself a journalist then you need to park your dislike for someone and use facts and evidence to challenge them and not descend into a mud slinging contest.

Otherwise don't invite crazy people on your show. No one is interviewing Gemma O'Doherty on prime time TV for good reason, but if they did I'd rather they took her apart professionally and not personally as the former is strong and more persuasive.

you seem to have lost, or never understood, all the context for that interview??
You seem to think it was a debate... which it observantly was not.

heres a newly formed far right party who platformed on lies, fear and scaremongering... who were completely dismissed by the electorate and returned less that 1% of the political vote.

The interviewer gave Ross every opportunity to apologise for spreading lies and fear, which he refused to do. She was dead right to keep turning the screw and the way she started with "you call yourself a loser" was perfect.

This is an award winning Political journalist so its a bit presumptuous to call her professionalism into context.

Yeah_Right

Interesting election result back home. The first time since the mid 80s that a party has a majority and doesn't need to form a coalition. While I would generally vote National I believe this is a good thing because this way Labour doesn't need the Green Party who are a bunch of hippies and activists. The best part is NZ First with Winnie the **** are gone. Not one single seat. He has gone from Deputy PM to unemployed. So happy that charlatan is out. National took hammering, losing a bunch of seats but interestingly ACT (who are more economically conservative) picked up seats and now have as many as the Greens. It was the most they have ever won.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few months as I suspect that NZ's economy could be in trouble. I know a few of my mates that own small to medium businesses there are worried.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

she has been widely praised for doing an excellent job in that interview.... so its seems your opinion is very much in the minority.

That's a pretty weak argument to be honest.

sydthebeat

she has been widely praised for doing an excellent job in that interview.... so its seems your opinion is very much in the minority.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

you are veering very very close to conspiracy theory and the dissolution of 'truth' here.....

????

No I'm not at all.

I'm saying if you want to call yourself a journalist then you need to park your dislike for someone and use facts and evidence to challenge them and not descend into a mud slinging contest.

Otherwise don't invite crazy people on your show. No one is interviewing Gemma O'Doherty on prime time TV for good reason, but if they did I'd rather they took her apart professionally and not personally as the former is stronger and more persuasive and much harder to challenge.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah but it is not though...and thats the whole point of why im arguing against you.

It is a variable fact that advanceNZ party spread lies about the covid 19 pandemic. and here
and about 5G

if you present those lies as an actual debating point, you legitimize them... and under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen.

The modern political landscape is littered with lies, misinformation and campaign journalism.

If journalists on all parts of the political spectrum left their opinions aside and focused on hard evidence we'd be in much better shape.

The interviewer in this instance failed to detach her opinion and feelings towards the interviewee which detracted from the overall discussion.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.
.

you are veering very very close to conspiracy theory and the dissolution of 'truth' here.....

The lies that were peddled was already substantiated and proven. The interviewer absolutely does not have to reference widely accepted truth

[Deleted User]

Synode wrote: »

If it's a factual statement Venjur, it's not an opinion.

The interviewer is not the arbiter of truth and cited no examples, it was entirely an opinion.

I don't think journalists should dispense with standards no matter how barkers the interviewee is, it's why I could never take Vincent Brown seriously.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Almost her first line is 'you have been peddling misinformation'. It may be true but it's still an opinion. .

ah but it is not though...and thats the whole point of why im arguing against you.

It is a variable fact that advanceNZ party spread lies about the covid 19 pandemic. and here
and about 5G

if you present those lies as an actual debating point, you legitimize them... and under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Almost her first line is 'you have been peddling misinformation'. It may be true but it's still an opinion. Had she asked about some of the misinformation and refuted it with facts fair enough but she left the statement stand on it's own merit.

It’s an absolute fact they were peddling misinformation, and using public electoral funding to help them do it. They had to withdraw adverts where they had doctored parliamentary footage to mislead the public.

Synode

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Almost her first line is 'you have been peddling misinformation'. It may be true but it's still an opinion. Had she asked about some of the misinformation and refuted it with facts fair enough but she left the statement stand on it's own merit.

If it's a factual statement Venjur, it's not an opinion.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

she was not offering her opinion??

that the person she was eviscerating interviewing had been politicising on the basis of outright lies, fear, hysteria and peddling misinformation is not a "position of opinion"

ive listened to it again... at absolutely no point does she say "i think", "i understand" or "i feel"... so why do you think what she was saying was her own opinion?

Almost her first line is 'you have been peddling misinformation'. It may be true but it's still an opinion. Had she asked about some of the misinformation and refuted it with facts fair enough but she left the statement stand on it's own merit.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Well no - the conservatives and republicans have gotten far more people killed so you are right, they aren't the same.

I'll stand by my opinion on this to be honest, it's fine for the ordinary person on the street or an opposition politician to turn someone like this inside out, but a good interviewer should ask tough questions and tough follow ups but their actual opinion shouldn't overtly come across.

she was not offering her opinion??

that the person she was eviscerating interviewing had been politicising on the basis of outright lies, fear, hysteria and peddling misinformation is not a "position of opinion"

ive listened to it again... at absolutely no point does she say "i think", "i understand" or "i feel"... so why do you think what she was saying was her own opinion?

aloooof

Deleted User wrote: »

I edited my post with an example but will post again: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-10-02/getting-r-number-below-one-key-to-lifting-north-west-restrictions-prime-minister-tells-itv-news

That is a good example of calling out BS without it coming across as overly personal.

The situation in the UK is absurd - I fully agree and even the once great BBC can no longer be referred to as neutral. Marr gives Johnson an easy ride and their political correspondent is effectively a Government spokesperson and the Conservatives have blacklisted a number of news outlets.

Having someone have a real go at them on a personal level helps their narrative however and there are plenty of examples of this.

I quite like the technique of putting the questions forward here; Boris was far less likely to have a go back at "Mark from Oldham" than if the interviewer posed the question herself.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Well no - the conservatives and republicans have gotten far more people killed so you are right, they aren't the same.

I'll stand by my opinion on this to be honest, it's fine for the ordinary person on the street or an opposition politician to turn someone like this inside out, but a good interviewer should ask tough questions and tough follow ups but their actual opinion shouldn't overtly come across.

If a serious journalist exposes their opinion that the pandemic hasn't been planned and spread using 5G masts and all the other absolute rubbish those people are spreading, then I won't shed a tear. Especially in this case where its someone blatantly trying to profit off of and take advantage of the people who were taken in by it.

If it was a legitimate politician who is arguing their policy ideas in good faith, that's another issue altogether.

If you treat charlatans with the same respect as serious politicans on any side of the divide, then you expose your electoral process to profiteering from bad faith actors. He (and his party) should either be ridiculed or excluded from national news altogether (which is what happened at the national debates, a decision these people unsuccessfully tried to take an injunction against).

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These are extremist loons who repeatedly outright lied about a massive pandemic. They promoted the plandemic conspiracy theory, they claimed (using a doctored video of parliament) NZers would be forced against their will to be vaccinated against COVID-19,

These are a tiny dangerous minority. They are the equivalent of Gemma O'Doherty and that gang. I'm not sure they even got as many votes.

It's completely wrong to compare treatment of them to treatment of the Conservative party in the UK or Republican party in the US

Well no - the conservatives and republicans have gotten far more people killed so you are right, they aren't the same.

I'll stand by my opinion on this to be honest, it's fine for the ordinary person on the street or an opposition politician to turn someone like this inside out, but a good interviewer should ask tough questions and tough follow ups but their actual opinion shouldn't overtly come across.