Which side makes a better case?
avatar
1 Comment
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 14 days ago

    Nice discussion gents. I think both of you give good arguments, so for me, it comes down to what I am inclined to think rather than either of you really convincing me.

    I think Andrew Neil is being confrontational for a reason, that being, it's an interview show where he is known for challenging his guests. If you go into a show where that is the standard, then you should be prepared for it, not challenge it.

    Were Neil's show not known for that, and this was aberrant behavior for him or this program, then I think Pro's case would be stronger. And the clip from Neil explaining that he's not giving a personal opinion, but instead is challenging the views of his guest, shows that Neil is aware of and trying to adhere to a Journalistic standard.

    Minzar's arguments are good ones, but I think the context is what defeats his argument and Julian does focus his defense on that.

    BTW: Ben issued a mia-culpa on the event saying he failed to be adequately prepared for the show.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/11/us-pundit-ben-shapiro-apologises-bbc-andrew-neil-interview