Ben is a master debater. In this interview he both failed and succeeded.

Where he failed was in trying to steer the interview away from uncomfortable questions that he didn't like being asked and to make it about the journalist's integrity. Neil did a great job of not feeding into it.


Where is succeeded is, well, here we are not discussing whether or not Ben has been hypocritical on his arguments, but whether or not Neil had an agenda by asking him the question in the first place.


This is the double standard that the right has been very good at creating. When Tucker Carlson sets up a fake interview with the only intent of discrediting someone from the left (or even a neutral scientist) complete with ad hominums, non sequitors, and most importantly talking over the answers, its explained away as "editorial" and that its okay. When Neil asks hard questions to point out Ben's hypocrisy, and gives Ben all the time in the world to answer them, the conversation gets turned into the leftist agenda that the journalist must have.


FWIW, Ben is one of the best conservative voices out there, but partly because the bar has been set so low.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Shapiro has since come out and admitted he prepared and performed poorly, and that he was mistaken in assuming the interviewer's intentions were driven by liberal bias.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't know enough politicians in the US to say anything other than, right of bernie and AOC and every other Dem

I suspect, as he has as far as I know never expressed views on religion, that he'd be fiscally right, socially left, but I can't say.

In the UK religion does not play a big role, so to describe someone as Conservative more often relates to tax, trade and minimum or less state intervention (though very few, even on the right, discuss eliminating the NHS, they make talk about opening up its market but not getting rid of it)

Ben addressed the controversy on social media recently:



Given that you've never heard of him previously, you'd get a better picture of who he is and what he believes from a different interview format. This was recorded following the interview in the OP.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

My understanding is part of Shapiro's new book addresses the ugly state of political discourse. The interviewer appeared to think Shapiro was part of the problem and wanted to use the segment to highlight anything Shapiro has said (and in some cases apologized for) to prove his point. Shapiro seemed go grow increasingly agitated as the interviewer refused to engage in a back in forth dialog, and insisting he was only there to ask questions. I can see why Shapiro got ticked off, however this is the game he chose to play. I think Shapiro is incredibly bright, however his approach turns a lot of people off. Like many people in the political arena he approaches everything as a zero-sum game.

I think he and Ben could have had a healthy dialogue if Ben could have resisted the temptation to go into debate mode. Ben is very smart, and I've heard him defend his positions very well on many occasions.

Honestly, I think he simply could have said, "the level of discourse you are bringing up is not what my book is about. I'm not advocating for completely politeness and agreeability across the spectrum. I'm talking about having to have police escort me when I speak on college campuses for my own actual physical safety."

That's more or less what I would have expected his answer to be given his history, and this is an area where I tend to agree with him.


The main problem I had with his answer is that he later acknowledged that he was wrong about the journalist's political leanings, but it shouldn't make a difference. That's exactly what an ad hominum attack is. It's attacking the person, not the position. If Rachel Madow had asked the same questions, they shouldn't be any less valid.

FWIW, I thought Bill O'Riley gave Obama one of the best interviews of his Presidential run. He asked some tough questions, and being a conservative Fox News pundit shouldn't detract from that either.

Final thought: I'm not really defending Neil as I don't know much about him. If that's his typical interview style and it is allegedly consistent with both sides, I don't have much issue. Yes, they were pointed questions, but they weren't dishonest questions and he allowed Ben to answer them.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Barry that is the best post you've made in a loooong time. Kudos. Well said.

I mostly agree with your last post. However, it's not very common in our media landscape for an unbiased journalist to essentially play the role of the heated opposition. If Maddow framed the question as Shapiro advocating for "barbaric" and "dark ages for women" policies, you pretty much know she believes that to be true of your position and there's little charity for your beliefs behind those accusations. I have heard journalists frame the question as "some would say that those policies are..." which he did not do as is the custom in the US, from what I've seen, and so I think it's understandable that Shapiro (you and I listen to the same podcasts and are familiar with his approach to these topics, and his beliefs) interpreted that as him expressing his own personal beliefs and attacking his position as anti-woman. As I said earlier, Ben wasn't familiar with this interviewer's style, and being constantly lumped in with white nationalists, alt-right, etc., being deplatformed, smeared, threatened, and misconstrued as often as not, I certainly understand why he didn't give a journalist the benefit of the doubt when he assumed the role of the uncharitable opposition for the sake of the interview.

He did give Ben the opportunity to respond, but he also did not clarify when Ben asked him if he would beg the question with advocates for abortion rights by calling them baby killers. A skilled interviewer, which he certainly is, could have steered that conversation back on track in an instant by making that clear. Instead, he chose to let Ben hang himself by never letting on that he would, in fact (if that's true), treat them similarly. Why let the interview needlessly deteriorate if his angle wasn't to cast Shapiro in a negative light? It still seems to me based on his phrasing of questions, his digging up decade old comments, and goading him with those descriptions without answering Ben's questions, that he was pursuing an angle in that interview. At least, he could have done a better job at getting the answers he was after, which in fact is the job of a journalist in that situation. So in my view, he failed as badly as did Ben.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I'm still not sure why anyone thinks a serious journalist has to answer questions about their views. It's not a debate or discussion forum, the interviewee agrees to participate on the basis they are going to answer questions, not on the basis of having a conversation that could take place down the pub

The interviewer appeared to shift from objective questioning to biased editorializing when he called the policies the interviewer "barbaric" and "dark ages." Had he not taken that tack, I'm sure it would have been a productive exchange. I think that's apparent.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Why is it illegitimate to ask if locking up a woman in jail for having an abortion at 6 weeks is barbaric?

Did he ask if it is, or did he appear to assert, with emphasis, that it is?

There's nothing illegitimate about asking the question. But it becomes editorializing when you endorse that subjective opinion of a policy and assert it as fact in the context of putting a question to a subject, which is how his part of the exchange came off. Ben accused him of editorializing, and maybe that's where he failed, not knowing that this is his style of pressing points.

Keep in mind I do believe it's cruel and unnecessary and I disagree strongly with Shapiro on this and many subjects. I'm just familiar with his work and how frequently he's unfairly attacked and characterized, and so it isn't surprising that he got defensive (as did the interviewer) and considered it biased interrogation rather than objective journalism, particularly when he wasn't familiar with his interviewing style and didn't get clarification when he pointedly asked.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I don't think you're understanding what I wrote, and you are smart enough to understand so I think your bias is showing. Ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well are shitty journalism.

And, Ben is not my guy. I wrote that already, but it seems like that doesn't go very far with you.

I think this Neil guy didn't interview well. However, I've should respond to some things written about Ben...

1.) Ben isn't that smart IMO. Some people are just impressed with fast talkers.

2.) Ben is a professional pundit. He's never seen a logical fallacy before? The guy needs to show up prepared.

3.) I've heard Ben in front of conservative groups, and he goes ad hominem on liberals every bit as much as any liberal gives it back to him in an interview.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. The interview I watched, he asked, "is it not barbaric to put a woman in jail who chooses to have an abortion at 6 weeks?" (I paraphrase, as I haven't gone back to get his exact wording, but feel free to correct me)

Seems like a legitimate question directed at someone who supports that position. It's not an accusation. Anyone asked that question could say, "I disagree with a law that would do that to a woman."

It seems Shapiro doesn't disagree. He also seems to not want to admit that he doesn't disagree, so instead he tried to turn the question on the interviewer. The interviewer asked him to answer the question.

Pretty straightforward.

"I mostly agree with your last post. "

Thanks.

"He did give Ben the opportunity to respond, but he also did not clarify when Ben asked him if he would beg the question with advocates for abortion rights by calling them baby killers. "


There's certainly room for argument regarding his approach, but I was actually rather impressed with his ability to stay on point about ben's integrity, or lack there of, rather than get dragged into the "you're the bigger jerk" contest, an area where I find myself getting the football yanked out from under me constantly.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485