# Another embarrassing moment for Fox News



## Guest (Jul 30, 2013)

[video=youtube;jnYl6_vqfcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnYl6_vqfcw[/video]


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

A few years ago FOX news was removed from Direct TV here in Japan.... hard to believe people actually think that what they do is news, and CNNj is no better. I don`t have many choices here so it`s BBC World most of the time.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Obviously they didn't do their homework. If you are interviewing someone about a book, at least read it. When you plan to ambush and humiliate a man, its also best to know a bit about him and his ability to turn the tables.

Too bad this doesn't happen more often.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Wow can she really be that stupid or maybe its just arrogance on her part to intervue a PHD and not to do her homework. I wonder if maybe her ( Christianity ) religon got in the way of the interview and she was not able to remove her own beliefs from the interview. 
Well it just seems that maybe FOX needs to actually hire people who can interview intellengent PHD's and actually communicate with the rest of the world out there and stop thinking that what they have to say is more important then the actual message of the kob thjey are suppose to be doing.ship


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2013)




----------



## Waterloo (Dec 25, 2012)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm not sure it's possible for a group of people who are both oblivious and shameless to have an embarassing moment.


Well stated. The fox interview reminded me of the one that took place with Kevin O'leary and Chris Hedges a couple of years ago.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I suspect some of the idiots at the network have listened to the BBC's "Hardtalk" and decided it would be a great premise for their network. They just overlooked the part that by and large the BBC's correspondents are extremely intelligent and do a LOT of homework before the interview.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I couldn't watch more than 2 and a half minutes of it before turning it off. A few things to note:

a) "News readers", which this woman clearly is, are folks who read teleprompters fluidly and clean up nice for the camera. They may well be very capable knowledgeable people in some areas, and sometimes they have track records as actual journalists behind them, but that is not what they are placed in front of the camera for. So I don't think we should expect too much from this woman. I have no idea what time slot she has so she may even be a 4th string news reader.

b) News readers have a team of people who do all the fact checking and background digging for them, while the reader is in makeup. Our ire should be directed towards them, not the person who seems to be struggling on camera.

c) The interviewee appears to have taken offense VERY quickly; right out of the gate. I don't know if he simply misinterpreted her question (which was poorly phrased, but with some verbal repair would be a harmless "So what got you interested in this topic?" question), or whether the guest coordinator folks he spoke to before coming on camera pissed him off somehow. His willingness to start flaunting his academic pedigree just seemed a little overly defensive. A better interviewer could have steered things back on track more smoothly, but he DID pose a little challenge up front. Bad start. If he was on The Daily Show, Stewart would have likely asked "So, I would imagine there'd be a lot of folks who would be asking 'The guy's a Muslim. What is he so interested about Jesus for?'. So what prompted you to write this book?"

d) While there is likely some intent on the author's part to stir a little controversy (keep in mind the title of the book), as an academic he is strongly and principally motivated by "Wanna hear something _really_ interesting?", and the interview did not seem to be framed as something interesting, but rather as something implicitly contentious. 

It's moments like this that make me miss Peter Gzowski a whole lot. There's a lot of negative stuff one might say about the CBC, but one of the things they have always had right was _quality_ interviewers. Whether Gzowski, Frum, Mansbridge, Gartner, Gomeshi, Wachtel, Hynes, Mansbridge, Grey, Finley, or Strombo, if you get interviewed on CBC, you always get interviewed by people who are curious; the best qualification for an interviewer.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Waterloo said:


> Well stated. The fox interview reminded me of the one that took place with Kevin O'leary and Chris Hedges a couple of years ago.


Kevin O'Leary and Chris Hedges? Oh jeez. Now THERE is a team that's never gonna win The Great Race.

Reminds me of an interview I saw some 30 years ago, when Letterman was first starting out and had his show on a mid-morning time slot. He had the late Fred "Mister" Rogers on as a guest, and thought he'd poke a little fun at Fred's expense. Mister Rogers brought some puppets, and with Daniel Striped-Tiger on his hand he absolutely levelled Letterman. Decimated him. Not that I dislike Letterman, but I honor Rogers more, and Dave got his comeuppance for being a smartass with my guy.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

and yet we're willing to accept as fact everything written by Christians about other faiths ......





nkjanssen said:


> Wow, did you and I ever see that differently! I thought her intent was extremely clear and he did a very good job of responding to the asinine assertion that a Muslim historian has no place writing about the history of Christianity.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

From the second question on, she was being deliberately adversarial. 

She really didn't seem qualified or at least capable of interviewing an academic.

I'd love to see her try that with Chris Hitchens, RIP.


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Search Reza out on either Jon Stewart or Bill Maher from the last week or so - he's been everywhere lately.

I can't even start a conversation about Fox "news" without breaking all or most of the no religion/no politics here (see rule 10 in the "original" Forum Rules).

In unrelated news, here's a cool shot of Mick Taylor.

View attachment 3922


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2013)

mhammer said:


> If he was on The Daily Show, Stewart would have likely asked "So, I would imagine there'd be a lot of folks who would be asking 'The guy's a Muslim. What is he so interested about Jesus for?'. So what prompted you to write this book?"


Jon's on a 3 month project. Here's John Oliver's interview with him. 3 parts.

[video=youtube;BcQYUo_3FIs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQYUo_3FIs[/video]


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2013)

[video=youtube;7bpv4FpF-TA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bpv4FpF-TA[/video]


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2013)

[video=youtube;uHqe1BIC364]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHqe1BIC364[/video]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

^^^Now that's how you conduct an interview.

Same as Jon, you can tell that they've at least given the author enough respect,
to have read the book that they're interviewing them about.


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

I watched the interviews in reverse, and frankly the FOX interview reinforces the opinion I`ve had for decades....and I`ll go out on a limb here and guess the FOX interviewer has a university degree of some kind...that just because someone can graduate from an institution of higher learning, does not mean that they will leave that institution with more common sense than they had when they entered. She should have had more respect and read the book before the interview which, to me, she obviously did not. She had a list of quotes and questions she was bound and determined to ask without really listening to his answers. Mr. Asian did say many of the same things in both interviews though which makes me wonder if all interviewers he meets in support of this book ask the same questions. Still, sounds like an interesting read even to me who does not follow any of the superstitions we call religion. If it comes out in paperback here maybe I`ll pick a copy up.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Here's the thing- she was probably doing exactly what she was told to do by her superiors. Watch FOX even briefly and you'll quickly see that it's a channel with a very distinct agenda.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Wow, did you and I ever see that differently! I thought her intent was extremely clear and he did a very good job of responding to the asinine assertion that a Muslim historian has no place writing about the history of Christianity.


Well, we did see it differently. My take was only slightly less benign than yours. I think she was expressing (perhaps scripted) genuine bewilderment that a _Muslim_ would have any interest in _Jesus_. A bit like asking "So why are you, a Chinese person, such an expert on hot dogs?", as if there was some necessary religio-cultural-racial divide with respect to what people are _supposed to be_ interested in. It was naive and perhaps ignorant, but it was not any sort of "What gives you the right...?" sort of lead-in. YOu don't have to be a genuis to know that an interview will not go well if you start out by challenging the guest's authority to speak about the very things you've invited them on to speak about.

Her attempt to ask that question came out more antagonistic than was perhaps intended. I know there are many who will doubt that, but Aslan is nothing if not a showman and a charismatic guest; no dull bland academic he. All of which makes him the sort of guest you want to get back again (as The Daily Show clearly has done), and not piss off and never see again, _*especially*_ if he writes best-selling books. Of course I say this only having watched the first 2-1/2 minutes.

As for my rephrased version of the question that Oliver did NOT ask, my point was simply that there are more and less antagonistic ways of providing the same lead-in. It is certainly not a _necessary_ lead-in, but if you're gonna do it, provide a polite way for the guest to segue into their shtick.

I watch Fox for _The Simpsons, Family Guy_ and _Burn Notice_ reruns. We don't get Fox News in our cable package, so my only exposure to it is via Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, if I haven't fallen asleep already. Probably just as well. I already take what I feel is too much blood pressure medicine, and I don't want to have to take more. Thankfully, Sun News and Hedline News are also not on our package, so I don't have to look at Ezra Levant's, Glen Beck's or Nancy Grace's mug while channel-flipping anymore. Unfortunately, they took BBC World from us.

But, I guess given my naiveté about Fox News, do they have a habit of trying to confront guests? I can't believe that all of their programming is of the Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly type.


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

FOX has a distinct agenda....yeah, no kiddin`.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Fox is not the only media outlet that has an agenda... they all do.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If I do not wish to take them seriously, I need only remind myself of two things:

1) Owned by Rupert "Mr. Ethics" Murdoch
2) The Fox Network's very first show was a Joan Rivers talk show ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Show_Starring_Joan_Rivers )


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

dradlin said:


> Fox is not the only media outlet that has an agenda... they all do.




I don`t get to see them all over here, very limited in my choices in Japan so can`t speak to all of them, but I did say CNNj was no better than FOX and thats one of the reasons I said that. How many of the news networks are owned by big business now? They certainly have a stake in lobbying. But big business plays a big role in gov`t now doesn`t it?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Corporatism, that's what's going on.


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

Yeah but come to think of it, the rich and powerful business owners of decades past also had a hand in politics so I guess it`s nothing new.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Revolving door of bum buddies.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

sulphur said:


> Corporatism, that's what's going on.


Yes, absolutely!

If you haven't seen the documentary "The Corporation", run... don't walk to see it. It will open your eyes to understand what is taking place and where we are headed.


----------



## Prosonic (Apr 28, 2009)

Wow.....wow.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

dradlin said:


> Yes, absolutely!
> 
> If you haven't seen the documentary "The Corporation", run... don't walk to see it. It will open your eyes to understand what is taking place and where we are headed.


i'm going to watch it while i have breakfast in a few minutes. i have a suspicion that life has already taught me everything they are about to tell me though.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

dradlin said:


> Yes, absolutely!
> 
> If you haven't seen the documentary "The Corporation", run... don't walk to see it. It will open your eyes to understand what is taking place and where we are headed.


I have news for you, we have already arrived


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have news for you, we have already arrived


Oh no we haven't... there is much more to play out, but we are far along and accelerating.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

ok, i watched 15/23. i stopped because in that time, *not one single piece of information wasn't common knowledge to anyone who doesn't live under a rock*. after the first 15, i perused the description on the final eight and there was no hint of a change.
i'll be the first to admit, i'm no genius. but just living everyday life has taught me everything in those videos. what good are they until they offer a viable solution for change?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> not one single piece of information wasn't common knowledge to anyone who doesn't live under a rock


Many are blissfully ignorant, many fail to comprehend, many have simply not yet lived enough years to develop understanding. Consider yourself amongst the well informed.


----------

