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

Bazzo

https://twitter.com/SoozUK/status/1317791603059286016

Would be nice to have a few interviewers like that on this side of the planet!

[Deleted User]

That's not really an interview though, it's basically a debate where both sides are offering their opinion.

Don't get me wrong, fully agree with the interviewer and absolutely understand her frustration - but it's campaign journalism and if I was a supporter of Ross it would be easy to dismiss this as a partisan attack.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not really an interview though, it's basically a debate where both sides are offering their opinion.

Don't get me wrong, fully agree with the interviewer and absolutely understand her frustration - but it's campaign journalism and if I was a supporter of Ross it would be easy to dismiss this as a partisan attack.

you cant debate with lies

lies has to be called out every single time its spouted, and if you enter into 'debate' with it, you legitimize it.

Bazzo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not really an interview though, it's basically a debate where both sides are offering their opinion.

Don't get me wrong, fully agree with the interviewer and absolutely understand her frustration - but it's campaign journalism and if I was a supporter of Ross it would be easy to dismiss this as a partisan attack.

Why should someone be given the right to spout very easily provably falsehoods in any form of media? I think for an interview you've been invited on to give your position or thoughts but you should be prepared to defend them robustly or be willing to get steamrolled for a fool, maybe it's just because I'm from a scientific and medical background.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Blood boiling stuff.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1019/1172407-covid-19-midwest/

Don't really think framing it as failing to restrict movements after returning from abroad is particularly helpful. The focus on restricting international travel while it runs rampant through communities is just not helpful. There isn't even any indication it was picked up from the travel. The problem is continuing to meet people while symptomatic (and meeting large numbers of people full stop). And it is something that people are universally failing to do

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

you cant debate with lies

lies has to be called out every single time its spouted, and if you enter into 'debate' with it, you legitimize it.

Bazzo wrote: »

Why should someone be given the right to spout very easily provably falsehoods in any form of media? I think for an interview you've been invited on to give your position or thoughts but you should be prepared to defend them robustly or be willing to get steamrolled for a fool, maybe it's just because I'm from a scientific and medical background.

I'm not saying lies should be let stand at all, far from it - but the interviewer starts by saying "you've been peddling misinformation all campaign" which is not a neutral position to begin with and put's the two on 'sides' when the interviewer in my opinion should be neutral.

Later in the interview she interrupts to stop the spreading of misinformation and calls it out as such which is fine, but her personal opposition to the man (whilst justifiable) is very apparent and I don't think that helps the interview nor will it sway people who agree with him.

kuang1

Bazzo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SoozUK/status/1317791603059286016

Would be nice to have a few interviewers like that on this side of the planet!

That's fookin brilliant! I doubt they chatted over a coffee once they were off air.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying lies should be let stand at all, far from it - but the interviewer starts by saying "you've been peddling misinformation all campaign" which is not a neutral position to begin with and put's the two on 'sides' when the interviewer in my opinion should be neutral.

Later in the interview she interrupts to stop the spreading of misinformation and calls it out as such which is fine, but her personal opposition to the man (whilst justifiable) is very apparent and I don't think that helps the interview nor will it sway people who agree with him.

people who agree with that are essentially gemmaroids. those people are not for turning.

however being very very hard on guys like that in interviews such as this is exactly what is need so the numbers of gemmaroids does not increase. You cant ligitimize it by trying to debate and allowing the lies to be told on national media. She was exactly correct, stop him from even suggesting the lies... she cut him down very quickly when he tried to suggest covid was the same as any other type of flu.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

people who agree with that are essentially gemmaroids. those people are not for turning.

however being very very hard on guys like that in interviews such as this is exactly what is need so the numbers of gemmaroids does not increase. You cant ligitimize it by trying to debate and allowing the lies to be told on national media. She was exactly correct, stop him from even suggesting the lies... she cut him down very quickly when he tried to suggest covid was the same as any other type of flu.

She did shut him down when required which was the right thing to do and a good example of how you manage someone like that without putting yourself as direct opposition.

Let's say you put Boris Johnson in the hot seat. His party enjoy popular support and whilst he is disliked, he isn't sitting on 1% of the vote. He will still fall apart under scrutiny but his media allies will quickly paint the interviewer as biased and partisan based on her lack of neutrality displayed throughout.

In essence - she will become the talking point and we've seen it repeatedly in the UK where the presence of a strong and coordinated right wing media platform can turn around and smear someone who shows the slightest hint of bias and turn that into the story.

New Zealand has just given an overwhelming mandate to a highly liberal left wing Government. In that climate interviewers can attack bull****ters like Ross and that's no bad thing, but try and apply that elsewhere and people will retreat into their camps rather than take the interview seriously.

Again - I fully agree with her, but she isn't really interviewing him here, she is debating him. It's cathartic but it won't be effective elsewhere.

Here is an example of what I would see as a more effective style of interview where the interviewer is tough but relatively neutral: 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

Bazzo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She did shut him down when required which was the right thing to do and a good example of how you manage someone like that without putting yourself as direct opposition.

Let's say you put Boris Johnson in the hot seat. His party enjoy popular support and whilst he is disliked, he isn't sitting on 1% of the vote. He will still fall apart under scrutiny but his media allies will quickly paint the interviewer as biased and partisan based on her lack of neutrality displayed throughout.

In essence - she will become the talking point and we've seen it repeatedly in the UK where the presence of a strong and coordinated right wing media platform can turn around and smear someone who shows the slightest hint of bias and turn that into the story.

New Zealand has just given an overwhelming mandate to a highly liberal left wing Government. In that climate interviewers can attack bull****ters like Ross and that's no bad thing, but try and apply that elsewhere and people will retreat into their camps rather than take the interview seriously.

Or you end up with a situation where Boris, Gove and co can hop on BBC and **** on with whatever spin they like and a lot of the electorate who were watching take it as gospel because they weren't strongly called out on it on air at the time.

[Deleted User]

Bazzo wrote: »

Or you end up with a situation where Boris, Gove and co can hop on BBC and **** on with whatever spin they like and a lot of the electorate who were watching take it as gospel because they weren't strongly called out on it on air at the time.

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.

[Deleted User]

And another example - the Axios interview with Trump. If the interviewer had started with a broad sweep accusation then the likes of Fox news would have shown just that clip as an example of Mainstream bias and never shown the rest. The interview as it was damaged Trump because the interviewer was entirely professional and impersonal but probing and persistent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmrEfQG6pIg

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

And another example - the Axios interview with Trump. If the interviewer had started with a broad sweep accusation then the likes of Fox news would have shown just that clip as an example of Mainstream bias and never shown the rest. The interview as it was damaged Trump because the interviewer was entirely professional and impersonal but probing and persistent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmrEfQG6pIg

I don't think they are the same situation. One person is still in power and one has been kicked out by the electorate. you might see the same interview approach with Trump after January, if he does any interviews that is with someone likely to pose questions like that (unlikely)

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

And another example - the Axios interview with Trump. If the interviewer had started with a broad sweep accusation then the likes of Fox news would have shown just that clip as an example of Mainstream bias and never shown the rest. The interview as it was damaged Trump because the interviewer was entirely professional and impersonal but probing and persistent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmrEfQG6pIg

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

[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.

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).

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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: »

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]

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.

[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.

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: »

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.

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.

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.