Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Let's Talk Interviews
So after watching the two different videos in last weeks lecture, I spent some time looking at interviews gone bad and I think this more than qualifies as one of those interviews. I'm not sure which of the two irks me more to be perfectly honest with you. He begins the interview with the wrong attitude, although I'm not overly fond of her attitude to start with either and it pretty much goes down hill from there. Between talking over each other and off subject, there isn't a single question that actually gets answered, all we really see is an argument. At the end of the video the reporter completely loses the little patience she has and cuts the feed to the guests microphone. Talk about cutting someone off, literally. Now I think its time to debate, professional or proactive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Um, yeah...what was that? He completely started off wrong by announcing MSNBC as "Obama's official network", yet she still held her composure. But she then fed into it towards the end by asking that his mic be cut...yikes! I probably would have done the same thing...the guy had an agenda. Period. I have to say that while it was unprofessional of her to cut his mic off, it was still proactive. He came not to discuss Palin, but to bash MSNBC. He got what he deserved.
ReplyDeleteYeah, my thoughts exactly! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry...Like you said, the attitude she started with was not all that great either but man that guy got on my nerves. That little smirk he had on his face the entire time drove me of the wall. People that were watching this left with nothing learned...yet again...Once again, how can the media truly educate the public with these types of interview going on and bad attitudes by either the interviewee or the interviewer? I think that guys purpose to just come on the show was to have his little rant on the network and to "ridicule" the...in my opinion he was the one who made himself look bad.
ReplyDeleteI think that he wasted a good opportunity to praise Palin and the republican party but ruined it by being rude. And you're right he didnt answer any questions! He just used his time to bash the network. I think that she should have cut his mic before she did because the interview was pointless.
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you, as I sat and watched the interview, I couldn't believe it. I watched it 3 times before I wrote my blog because I didn't know where to start becasue there are so many different problems with the "interview"
ReplyDeleteThere were huge problems on both sides. It think that both of them kinda had a bad attitude going into the interview. Neither one of them knew how to let go of the fact the other person supported a different side. They just couldn't find a way to put their differences behind them and have an intelligent conversation. It's pretty sad really. This is the media the represents our country. It's disappointing really. How are people supposed to find intelligent news sources when stuff like this happens?
ReplyDeleteWow. I agree that he did come on with an agenda, and probably had no intention of discussing the topic of the Letterman roast of Sarah Palin. It was definitely out of line for him to bash the network within 1 minute of the interview. She kept her composure, something I probably wouldn't be able to do, even after being attacked. If he didn't want to do the interview, then he should have said 'no' when she noticed his negative attitude in the beginning and asked him if he wanted to continue with the interview.
ReplyDeleteAs for her, she should have ousted the interview in the beginning when it was obvious that his intentions had nothing to do with Letterman's show. When he bashed the network, we all knew that this interview wasn't going to be a civil one, and it would've been in her best interest to end it there. By cutting his microphone off, she showed the public that he did get under her skin, something a professional reporter shouldn't necessarily do.
Both parties were unprofessional, but it is unfair to say that she was the cause when the first unnecessary and nasty comment made was by him.
Wow, that was definitely a great example of network news shows doing a horrible job of getting anything accomplished. By the end of the interview I felt completely confused about what it was they were even talking/arguing about. He came on the show strictly to blast the network and the reporter. This kind of behavior does nothing to further his argument and makes him come off as a huge jackass.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, why did they even have this guy on the show in the first place? I understand that both sides need to be represented in a story, but the networks should at least try to screen people a little better before bringing them on these shows. If someone is actually intelligent and a good spokesperson for their side of the argument then they will not attack the reporter and they will try to answer the questions to the best of their ability. This guy did neither of those things and made a complete fool of himself. Not to mention that he wasted 4 minutes of my life with his ranting.
I agree that she probably went a little over at the end but I felt more bad for her because she was at her job, he wasn't. She had to kinda be polite and just put up with it while he could just spout off whatever he wanted without any repercussions.
ReplyDelete