I think the end of this post misses the point of Ezra Klein's interviews. You can listen to him podcast about podcasting, and he explains very clearly what his goals are when he talks to someone. He's an interviewer, not a debater. His goal is to guide the person he's talking to critical places that explain their own world view, not to win an argument with them or get them to admit that they're making up a silly anecdote like they don't know their address, because thats counter productive the the goal of helping his audience understand their viewpoint. I listened to this, I marked what a ridiculous metaphor that was, and how inapplicable it is the to topic of learning math, and didn't need Ezra to call it out.
That's not an interview, that's at best stenography and at worse sycophancy.
If, for example, an interviewee said in all seriousness "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" would you expect the interviewer to go go "Hmmm very interesting. Why do you think that?"
No.
It is vital that interviewers challenge the subject. Especially when they say something profoundly ludicrous or disturbing. Otherwise they might has well just be in PR.
You can have different types of interview, they don't all have to be permissive or challenging. If someone said "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" during a podcast interview what good is it going to do for the interviewer to challenge that? The interviewee has already declared something horrendous, telling them they're beyond the pale on the spot is unlikely to change anything. Asking them why would be much more valuable since they could expose more of their deranged fantasies (at least in this scenario) which would subject them to even more revulsion and scrutiny by listeners. If you watch police interrogations this is often the tactic used even in the most horrendous crimes. They aren't confrontational, they don't denounce, they often don't even challenge inconsistencies at first. They let people speak and encourage them to say more or go over something they talked about previously in more detail. It appears almost friendly or compassionate to a casual observer but they're really just giving the subject more rope to hang themselves with.
If you publish a podcast where your guest encourages heinous behaviour without you challenging - that's a you problem.
Saying "Well, our listeners can decide for themselves" is a cowardly cop-out.
You might not be able to change the interviewee's mind but you can sure as hell send social signals to your audience that you condemn their views or think they're ludicrous.
Case in point - why are you trying to change my mind here? You're pushing back because you want to signal to others that my point of view is incorrect. That sort of basic interrogation seems completely missing in (especially American) media.
You're assigning motives to me that I don't have. Maybe that is the distinction, you think how you appear to an audience is important, I'm viewing this no differently than I would a private conversation. I'm not performing or signalling to anyone.
This really isn't the same thing as an interview. I'm not talking to you for the benefit of an audience or as a way to document your thoughts. I'm saying what I think and responding to what you think (and accuse me of thinking). I'm expressing my own opinion, I'm not trying to win a debate or make myself look good.
wtobey1 · · focus · HN ↗
edent · · focus · HN ↗
If, for example, an interviewee said in all seriousness "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" would you expect the interviewer to go go "Hmmm very interesting. Why do you think that?"
No.
It is vital that interviewers challenge the subject. Especially when they say something profoundly ludicrous or disturbing. Otherwise they might has well just be in PR.
pigpop · · focus · HN ↗
edent · · focus · HN ↗
Saying "Well, our listeners can decide for themselves" is a cowardly cop-out.
You might not be able to change the interviewee's mind but you can sure as hell send social signals to your audience that you condemn their views or think they're ludicrous.
Case in point - why are you trying to change my mind here? You're pushing back because you want to signal to others that my point of view is incorrect. That sort of basic interrogation seems completely missing in (especially American) media.
pigpop · · focus · HN ↗
edent · · focus · HN ↗
Why wouldn't you do the same if I said something outrageously offensive in public?
pigpop · · focus · HN ↗