[ad_1]
Many conservatives are angry with Andrew Neil of the BBC for his interview Friday with Ben Shapiro. I think they're missing the key point here.
I understand why Shapiro was made worse by Neil's questions and style. Suggest to Shapiro that the bill on heartbeat in Georgia, which would ban abortion when a heartbeat is detected, is a return to "the dark age," Neil hit. a nerve that many conservatives would probably share. Neil is also making fun of the central quarrels of Shapiro's new book.
But what is missing to people, that's why Neil did that. His intention was not to insult Shapiro for the insult. His intention was to unbalance Shapiro. That's the usual price that Neil interviews in an old line of British journalism: getting under the skin of the subject. Neil followed the same course by interviewing people who had antithetical opinions to Shapiro. Consider his interview with a Greenpeace activist, or Labor's chief treasurer, or leftist journalist Owen Jones.
So, when Neil started Shapiro's interview by referring to the Green New Deal as saying that the Democrats had all the new ideas, he did not really believe it. He was just trying to make Shapiro understand why he thought Conservative ideas were better. Yes, Neil could have done better if he had known that Shapiro liked to go to the heart of the problems. But Neil is not a liberal claiming to be an objective anchor point. He is in fact a journalist with a long history in the conservative media of the United Kingdom.
The fundamental point here is that Neil 's style is focused on making the interviewees feel uncomfortable so that viewers get an idea of the interviewee and their passion or not for what? they say. Shapiro succeeded in this respect: he articulated his beliefs with determination. Neil and Shapiro should be happy for that.
[ad_2]
Source link