He just got schooled by a proper journalist
He should certainly have done his homework. Andrew Neil was a newspaper editor, is a conservative magazine editor and not a hack
The dogma of these guys does come apart under scrutiny, but it’s never exposed as they only work in an echo chamber, the very same thing they accuse snow flakes on the left of doing
You’ve never heard of Ben Shapiro but you’re willing to pass judgement based on one interview?
You’ve never heard of Ben Shapiro but you’re willing to pass judgement based on one interview?
I am willing to pass judgment on his voice. He sounds like a wiener.
I’m willing to pass judgement on anyone that purports to hold a specific view and sits down with a professional journalist. Yes
You’ve never heard of Ben Shapiro but you’re willing to pass judgement based on one interview?
I am willing to pass judgment on his voice. He sounds like a wiener.
smart dude, but I agree.
I thought he handled himself pretty well. I think there is a bit of a culture clash between UK and US politics that showed through in this interview.
I’m not a huge fan of Shapiro, but, I do respect his intellect and have heard a lot of discussions between him and those on the left who are interested in civil discourse. I don’t think he came away from this looking bad at all.
I used to listen to Shapiro’s podcast, but it got to be exhausting to listen to, with his voice and cadence.
I think he did fairly well, also, though it never looks good when you shut down an interview. It doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum the BBC journalist resides on; Ben’s challenges to how he framed the questions in biased fashion were legitimate and relevant, and it was clear that the journalist had an angle to pursue, that Shapiro was lamenting a problem of his own creation, to an extent. He owned his prior stupid, inflammatory statements and provided context, and pointed out that they’re old comments or tweets that he admits were stupid, so he’s right to question why the journalist was harping on statements made nearly a decade ago while framing his opinions as dark age, barbaric thinking.
I don’t agree with all of his positions (I’m definitely more in line with Sam Harris, whom Ben knows and respects and converses with regularly despite their differences) but I appreciate his thoughtful and reasoned approach to those discussions. Ben Shapiro is the kind of guy the right needs more of, not fewer.
Andrew Neil is a conservative
He’s a journalist
His job is to question someone who espouses a particular viewpoint and to disect any hypocrisy
Irrespective of whether Shapiro has owned them, if he puts himself in a public space as a supposed critical thinker of the right (note his interviewer is extremely right wing) then they are fair game
What do you think Andrew Neil’s objective was
.
Ben Shapiro is the kind of guy the right needs more of, not fewer.
The right needs 10x more guys and gals like Jonah Goldberg, Noah Rothman, Peggy Noonan, Kimberly Strassel, …
He claimed to be playing devil’s advocate for the sake of the interview, but it definitely came off as a biased line of questioning typical of today’s American cable news media. I don’t think Ben was wrong to slam the brakes on his question begging.
My issue is that Shapiro seems to have a habit of saying “yeah, that was a stupid comment I made - please disregard itâ€. Once or twice, I get. Seems like he’s made a habit of saying stupid shit only to apologize for it. At a certain point you have to question if he’s really that bright.
+1
.
I used to listen to Shapiro’s podcast, but it got to be exhausting to listen to, with his voice and cadence.
I think he did fairly well, also, though it never looks good when you shut down an interview. It doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum the BBC journalist resides on; Ben’s challenges to how he framed the questions in biased fashion were legitimate and relevant, and it was clear that the journalist had an angle to pursue, that Shapiro was lamenting a problem of his own creation, to an extent. He owned his prior stupid, inflammatory statements and provided context, and pointed out that they’re old comments or tweets that he admits were stupid, so he’s right to question why the journalist was harping on statements made nearly a decade ago while framing his opinions as dark age, barbaric thinking.
I don’t agree with all of his positions (I’m definitely more in line with Sam Harris, whom Ben knows and respects and converses with regularly despite their differences) but I appreciate his thoughtful and reasoned approach to those discussions. Ben Shapiro is the kind of guy the right needs more of, not fewer.
From watching the first half – too much of a bore to watch it all – it certainly seemed like Ben had a legitimate complaint. I don’t suppose Andrew Neil would cross examine abortion rights advocates as baby killers.
That being said, I’m not a huge fan of Ben Shapiro and his approach. He’s too tribal.
He claimed to be playing devil’s advocate for the sake of the interview, but it definitely came off as a biased line of questioning typical of today’s American cable news media. I don’t think Ben was wrong to slam the brakes on his question begging.
This is a fairly typical BBC interview, pressing the interviewee on their views no matter which side of the political spectrumthey are. Check out the BBC program Hard Talk for an idea.
Shapiro has written a book in which he complains about the state of political discourse. Seems legit to ask him about his own inflammatory comments.
Perhaps it’s the interviewer’s style of playing devil’s advocate, assuming the role of the opposition and hurling the most pointed accusations at the subject and compelling them to defend it on those terms, but then he (BBC guy) seemed to duck the question when Shapiro asked for clarification, if he would level the same heated charge against pro-choice advocates, calling them barbarians and baby killers. It’s hard to give him credit for objectivity when he pointedly refused to answer that specifically. The interviewer seemed himself to get defensive when challenged.
He seemed intent on discrediting Shapiro by painting him as the imperfect messenger, essentially calling him a hypocrite as evidenced by dumb things Shapiro has said in the past, and not acknowledging that he regretted and clarified some of those hyperbolic charges. The entire interview process seemed geared toward painting Shapiro’s views as wrongheaded and Shapiro himself as not credible.
I’m sure there’s a cultural stylistic nuance that got lost in translation there, but I certainly don’t blame Ben for interpreting it as he did.
I think you need to see Andrew Neil take apart Ken Livingston
Shapiro went on a show with a journalist. He should not have expected the echo chamber of Fox
If he wants to talk about elevating the level of discourse, its amazing how much of a role he plays in lowering it
As an aside, Neil does not need to answer Shapiro questions. If Shapiro had done even a tiny amount of research, aside from knowing Neil was a key murdoch national editor, he’d also have known Neil gives it to both sides with equal if not more vigor
This particular idiot, Diane abbot, was his Co presenter. She is not only just a horrific politician, and an idiot, she very undeserved receives the most hate mail of any UK politician by some margin
Didn’t Neil complain to Shapiro about online videos being described as “(so and so) DESTROYS (so and so)” and essentially holding him personally responsible for it perpetuating a climate of political conflict? And here, he’s “grilling” one guest and “destroys” another.
Ben Shapiro is the kind of guy the right needs more of, not fewer.
The right needs 10x more guys and gals like Jonah Goldberg, Noah Rothman, Peggy Noonan, Kimberly Strassel, …
I like Strassel and don’t know Rothman. But if there would be many more like Goldberg and Noonan, I’ll vote democrat next election. Those are two of most self absorbed pundits writing today. I just don’t care for pundits who write in the first person. Stop talking about yourself, please. If forced to read, I’ll take Krugman and Friedman over them.
how far to the right is Shapiro if he thinks Andrew Neil is from the left?
Wish we had guys like Neil and Paxman doing political interviews in the US.
Didn’t Neil complain to Shapiro about online videos being described as “(so and so) DESTROYS (so and so)” and essentially holding him personally responsible for it perpetuating a climate of political conflict? And here, he’s “grilling” one guest and “destroys” another.
Neil is not the one who wrote a book saying, essentially “we need better political dialogue.”
You are accusing Neil of “DESTROYING” someone. That’s your characterization. In Shapiro’s case, it was Shapiro using that language, seemingly hypocritically considering he is someone advocating for better discourse - hence the question by the journalist about this.
I mean really, everyone here complains about biased media and journalists, and here is a conservative journalist asking a conservative tough questions, as any self-respective journalist should do, and suddenly that’s no good either… I don’t get it.
Have you seen Cuomo on CNN asking a Dem tough questions? He does it. Do they throw their toys out of the pram? Maybe some of them do, but more often than not they answer the question and don’t accuse Cuomo of being a biased conservative.