Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This is also an interesting article on the problems with the Channel 4 interview, and the problems we run into (especially when debating a “loon”) when we impose our interpretation of intent and meaning over the words right in front of us.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thea...rticle/550859/ |
One explanation I heard for Newman's interviewing approach is that she's accustomed to interviewing politicians and other slippery characters who rarely come out and say what they mean, especially when discussing controversial issues. Dealing with Peterson - who is extraordinarily specific and clear in his language, while also saying controversial things - was outside her experience as a journalist.
I honestly don't think the interview was all that bad. Newman certainly isn't deserving of the attacks she's been getting in some quarters. As a journalist, she's not any kind of expert on the subjects she interviews people about. She posed challenging questions, Peterson answered them in a manner that was both thought-provoking and entertaining, and the story generated massive publicity. Win-win-win.