While we're discussing interviews
Find a Conversation
While we're discussing interviews
| Tue, 09-09-2008 - 12:40pm |
I posted these links before but I wanted to post them again since the subject of biased interviews and reporting has come up.
Both candidates were interviewed by Time magazine for Time's special issues - The Republicans and The Democrats. I don't believe either interview had hostile questions yet McCain seemed very short and irritable in his interview. When I first read it I couldn't believe the way he was coming across so I read the entire transcript b/c I really thought that the published interview may have

I thought the reporter asked McCain some cheesy questions and I don't think I would have answered them either.
McCain tried to say as little as possible and I was frankly surprised by the vague, evasive, inarticulate jibber. He was also rude. If he were going to be an ass, why would he have granted the interview in the first place? (The only reason I can think of is that he just wants to be able to say that he addressed the "liberal press" - "Liberal Press" being a code word for people who actually do their jobs instead of clicking their heels together smartly and shouting "Yes, Sir!" whenever somebody gives and order and waves a flag.)
Obama was lucid, direct, articulate and affable. However, that is irrelevant.
The election will not be won by reason or evidence. Many politicos are not only oblivious to evidence, but indifferent, and in many cases downright hostile to it. How can you even THINK about evidence when THE TERRORISTS ARE AT OUR VERY DOOR! THIS IS TIME TO ACT, NOT A TIME TO THINK!
Here's the thing: My daughters have occasionally lamented to me that some teachers are wrong and will not - cannot admit they are wrong - marking them off for things that are clearly correct. Essentially, grading them on criteria that are not just orthogonal to correctness, but in some cases opposed to it. They were in the unwinnable situation of being graded by someone who themselves did not understand the subject, were not ever going to understand the subject, were averse to learning the subject, and viscerally antagonistic to anyone who questioned them, however innocently. Now, if anyone asked those teachers if this were true, they would surely deny it. They'd give various and sundry explanations for their actions. They would have justified it in their own minds - and they would think they were being very reasonable. It's perfectly reasonable to give a cheerleader a grade of A for turning in 2 paragraphs of sophomoric drivel unsupported by a single fact, and someone else a B for turning in a thesis with which he disagrees, but is ably supported by actual evidence and clear reasoning.
That's what the election is going to be like. The candidates are going to get voted on, "graded" by people who believe themselves to be very competent judges who have done their homework, and are making rational, informed decisions. Modern William Stoughtons get to decide the rules of the court. And anyone who can string two sentences together into a coherent argument is just oh so arrogant! And anyone who questions the proceedings is trying to subvert the process.
And anyone who can string two sentences together into a coherent argument is just oh so arrogant!
Don't forget "elitist"!