Rantings via Weblog (Click here to go to the Home Page!)

Tucker Carlson interviewed a Dutch historian Rutger Bregman who had just made himself unpopular at Davos. He then went on to make himself unpopular with Carlson, and with Fox who did not air the interview. Fox/Carlson have since had to do some back-peddling after Bregman published the recording he'd made of the interview.



One commentator described Carlson as ""a hollow mouthpiece with no true values". Harsh, but fair?

Andrew Neil is a consummately professional journalist. Shapiro's lack of preparation for this interview included not boning up on who he would be dealing with.

There's also a fundamental misunderstanding by Shapiro about how journalism in the USA works compared with how it works in the UK. Andrew Neil, in his questions, takes an opposite viewpoint and challenges his subject on a topic. It does not mean he holds the polar opposite views; it's just an adversarial style of questioning, designed to get to the heart of the matter. On American television, it seems you are expected to assume the interviewer holds the position from which their questions come. He even explained his method to Shapiro when the poor Schlep seemed to misunderstand and take offence.

But even considering that stylistic difference in approach, it does not mean you should flounce off when things do not go your way.

Shapiro missed an opportunity here and buried himself. Perhaps he expected a friendly interview and was curve-balled when he found all was not "on side".