A controversial interview discussing " Rights ". Who has the right to out " still in the closet" Gay lawmakers who allegedly craft legislation opposing Gay rights and is this an excuse for salacious reporting !! I am personally annoyed with this male anchor. Not my style , if I were to be doing this interview. Pointed questions yes, but his demeanor is not really appropriate, nor professional IMO.

I really wouldnt want to be the woman anchor in the middle of all that !

The clip is 10 minutes long.

http://news.aol.com/article/angry-anchor/478089

Well, she handled herself well!! Agreed too. She just got tossed in there, sink or swim.

Very interesting topic that I was not aware of.

I have to think over the approach they are using. I'll have something to say on that, but it's worth kicking around for a bit before I do.

The anchor just lost it huge! I'm not worried about him being repulsed over the approach to political advocacy and activism. That's gonna happen.

Given that, and his position, he really should have:

a. Watched the freaking movie!

b. Did some show prep so that he had his issues sorted out pre-air

c. Approached those with pointed questions aimed at bringing value to the interview.

Clearly the blogger being interviewed was ready to go. He's done his homework, and I absolutely love his point on bloggers being journalists.

His claim is that his blog hasn't been wrong, and the majors have been wrong A LOT. *BAM* This is one reason I read a fair number of blogs. Passionate people, with their reputation on the line, often produce excellent investigative work. Of course it's biased. But, it's real and it's honest, and it's very easy to spot the hack among the real deal bloggers.

Major league journalism should treat that as a gaffe for the profession and work hard to address it. (I recommend blogging, but that's just me.)

Thanks for posting that up.

Report Card:

Blogger being interviewed- A

Woman journalist- B (she could have done a bit more prep and really shined there, good otherwise)

Male Anchor- FAIL

For not apologizing later on- EPIC FAIL.

Good point kskd ! Interviewing wasnt my strong point when I was doing radio. Being a frustrated small market Boss jock ...Was...yes, the male anchor wasnt prepared AT ALL ...just spouting emotional rhetoric and knee jerk personal opinion...

I find the whole subject rather disgusting, about a movie outing alleged gay people no matter who they are or what they do for a living...but thats just me anyhow...to do a professional interview would be more important to the viewers.

All of the ordinary stuff, gathering assets, working with producer, fact checking, etc... that's standard stuff.

Getting into a solid mental space is key. When I see people do damn tough interviews, they shine when it's clear they've done that. Had he prepped up, he could have made it totally clear he was repulsed. From there, maybe he could dish out a slice of punishment or two to the blogger and make a real interview TV segment out of it. Nothing wrong with that.

Thing is that makes this so bad is the mere mention of this would have chapped that anchors ass! He absolutely knew better, because he was hot under the collar before the segment even got started! Big no-no.

Now, he's let his ego take him right out of the game! Not only did he hammer a few gaffes home, but he kept pounding them straight through with the non-apology afterword!

Stupid is as stupid does!

Now it's easy cheezy. Get on his show, press the asshole button, and know he's highly likely to just go off, taking the station and staff down too.

Betcha he's gone in less than 6 months.

I sure as hell wouldn't keep him. Too risky.

Did you notice that at about 0:51 the anchor threw out a standard conservative misinformation talking point. That Barney Frank was responsible for the collapse of the financial system.

The anchor definitely has an agenda.

I did notice that Listenerpete. That was the first clue that the guy was into opinion and not fact. (and full of BS besides)

Terry Gross interviewed the films director Kirby Dick, and an outed RNC staffer, Dan Gurley last week.

LINK

I'm personally conflicted on the tactic of outing "anti-gay gays" because I hate hypocrisy, but in the end I still think that coming out needs to be a personal choice left up to the outee.

That was one of the most unprofessional "interviews" I've ever seen. The co-host hit it right when she said "You had your O'Rielly moment".

BTW: I'm pretty much against "outing".

I missed that the first time through.

Amus, I think I agree. But... what if their public statements are aggregated and analyzed?

I think that's part of what this group is doing. Not sure where I stand on that. Anyone can say stupid things, and anyone else can add them up for some conclusion. Scary stuff.

If they actually out themselves though, game on! I've no worries there.

Setting that aside, the sport of it is intriguing. There is nothing better than nailing repressed people in denial!

The second the host announced his viewpoint of being against outing these politicians, BEFORE asking a question, setting the combative, antagonistic tone. I hope he was reprimanded ... that's not reporting the news, that is making the news. Yellow journalism at its finest ...

This interview is right up there with one that I heard during the early days of KPAM, where Rob Kramer interviewed some lady (I can't remember her name) who wrote a book that made the claim that "male aggression" was the root cause of global warming or with an "interview" that Sean Hannity did, shortly after 9/11 of a self-proclaimed liberal professor from the University of Texas. In those interviews, as in the News Channel 8 interview, the hosts threw out clues early on that the person being interviewed was not going to get a fair interview; rather, they were going to be used as comic figures for the audience to vicariously vent their frustrations on (through the biased interview host). The result in all three cases was a three-ring circus. If you really care about the content of the film being discussed in the News Channel 8 interview, watching this "interview" is a waste of time.

I wasted my time watching that video. What I wanted to see was the anchor kick the guys ass.

Thats all anyone wanted to see.

Aren't we stirring the pot a little there, Mc74?

Nonetheless, you didn't get your wish either. This clip almost bordered on 3 Stooges territory.

It was just two idiots arguing. Boring.

look at the poll though, most people belive the blogger was at fault and that the anchor did nothing wrong.

Online polls are bogus at best.

Polls conducted during TV newscast are also bogus.

I wonder if you think they are bogus cause it didnt produce the results you wanted.

You can be that stupid, can you? You think online polls have any validity at all? TFM

Has mc74 EVER made a non-bogus comment at all in his life? I wonder.

I think the premise of the blogger and his ilk are ridiculous, this so called documentary movie is scatalogical from the get go. And so do I believe that the interviewer's hosting and interviewing skills sucked big time, he used bad judgement to say the very least . It all turned out to be a screaming match of emotional responses by the interviewer ,and hedgeing , roving eye excuses by the blogger.

As the TV station is in DC , they of course were catering to the ' constituency" within the beltway. The interviewer was trying to make his brownie points with the establishment of lawmakers and their associates. He did so , it seems from the response of some of the poll takers.

Yeah, and the lowly blogger kicked his ass, because the Anchor bent over and offered it up to him.

That topic is not a slam dunk. Too bad the Anchor took himself right out of the game.

The more I think about this the more I realize that perhaps it's not a bad thing. When people are trying to legislate morality, they open the door to this crap.

Truth is, if they don't pick this fight, they don't end up on the wrong side of some people that just don't like holier than thou types trying to teach people a lesson.

I think it's low, but I think given the subject material, it's fair game. I sure as hell don't want my moral choices legislated for me. And if we've got people in positions of power advocating for that, IN DENIAL, then Hell yes! Nail them. Our lives are not their own personal therapy session.

My position on this boils down to that I hold on religion. At the end of the day, all we have is statements of faith on that. We are equals then, meaning nobody is entitled to a holier than thou position.

If they take one, and they are not defensible, then they get what they get. That's the risk you run on that crap.

On the other hand, where we've got some body of established fact --some peer reviewed authority, then it's different. There is a position to stand from, and that's worth protecting, even if we don't agree. Boils down to simple advocacy. No harm there.

Politicians in denial, "treating" that with discriminatory legislation isn't a worthy use of their position. Hammer that home, don't care what party they are from.

The blogger got some points out along those lines and they resonate with me. He won the match. I'm not completely sold, but I have to say I'm largely there in favor of the movement to put some social pressure on these clowns in denial.

Would have been nice to hear the other side presented. Maybe he wouldn't have won the match, and that's the real failure of this particular anchor.

If his cause is to discourage this kind of thing, and I think it is, those that agree with him really should hammer him on that. He lost points that might not have been taken, had he stepped up and done it right.

That's why I still say he's gone in 6 months. Most people, who don't agree with the blogger, are gonna get there and realize he just hosed them good.

From the beginning of the interview, the male anchor sounds like he wants to use the interview to "lecture" the interviewee. This might win brownie points with people of certain ideological alignments, and it might make some viewers celebrate a vicarious victory, but I think that this makes for a lousy interview. In my opinion, the right strategy to take when interviewing somebody who is controversial or who possibly has some hidden motives is to research that person's history and viewpoints, looking for inconsistencies or signs that they are misrepresenting their motives. Then, structure the interview questions in such a way as to put the interviewee at risk of revealing those inconsistencies or hidden motives. In other words, one is trying to get the interviewee to "hang himself."

This "outing" technique is certainly controversial, and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the precedents that it sets with regards to privacy and to the level of sensationalism that is acceptable. However, I can understand the political strategy that this guy is using in his film. First, bringing in an element of hypocrisy makes the story more likely to be picked up by the press because the public hates it when politicians commit acts of hypocrisy. If the story were simply about a politician introducing some anti-gay legislation, it would simply not get as much coverage in the press, and the general public wouldn't care about it as much. Second, outing these politicians is a quick way to end their careers by driving a wedge between them and their supporters.

---

quote:

In my opinion, the right strategy to take when interviewing somebody who is controversial or who possibly has some hidden motives is to research that person's history and viewpoints, looking for inconsistencies or signs that they are misrepresenting their motives. Then, structure the interview questions in such a way as to put the interviewee at risk of revealing those inconsistencies or hidden motives. In other words, one is trying to get the interviewee to "hang himself."

---

I never said it was valid. I was pointing out the results and also pointing out that if the results were reversed your stupid ass would be in support of it.

Thats what hypoctites do. Its what you do.

Thats what hypoctites do.

So... Then they are EXTREME RIGHT slanted neo-CONers???

I am going to sneak into your house and break your caps button.

LOL!


Love you!

I am going to sneak into your house and break your caps button.

The caps button key is used by lazy folks like you, others use the left and right Shift Keys

I never said it was valid. I was pointing out the results and also pointing out that if the results were reversed your stupid ass would be in support of it.

Thats what hypoctites hypocrites do. Its what you do.}

Mc74 has gone back to the school yard. Weasel!!!

mc74 sez: I am going to sneak into your house and break your caps button.

Unlike you, trix has a house and his own computer. I've a hunch the public library/gun museum in Estacada wouldn't appreciate a missing caps lock button.

Stop. Just stop. You are neither funny or clever. When Trixter does it its funny.

Dont copy Trixters material. Get your own.

As for your boyfriend Listenerpete all I can say is thank you for the attention.

You guys!!!

When I read some of these exchanges with name-calling, finger-pointing, and really lousy composition, I find myself in disbelief that adults could be producing stuff like that.

Boyfriend? LOL. Weasel!!!

As my dear friend Trixter would say...

Thats Mr Weasel to you.