Everyone is the US needs to hear this interview. Instead of being unimpressed with the interviewer, I am now even more impressed with Greenwald. Keep it going Glenn.
Kirsty Wark is not just âunpreparedâ in this interview. She is a bullying and adversarial advocate for evidence-free assertions by un-elected officials of the security-state establishment.
She is perfectly âpreparedâ - it is simply that the anti-freedom, and anti-privacy message for which she is carrying water, is innuendo, lies and libel. These are exposed by calm and truthful rebuttals.
Ms. Warks actual anger at her journalistic subject is remarkably unprofessional. it is the indication of how completely owned she is - and by implication, how completely untrustworthy is the BBC, as a conduit of state propaganda.
Iâm always amazed at the poor quality of these clips (e.g., the abrupt ending). Do they have interns putting this stuff up?
I have to say I am actually impressed with that interviewer. If someone had spent 15 minutes making myself look that stupid on national TV, I think I would have run off crying. Then again, I personally would refrain acting like an ass on TV like that.
Thanks for sharing this interview. I agree that it was pretty poor journalism from Newsnight and Kirsty Wark. I didnât feel that her questions showed an understanding of the underlying issues or helped illuminate those issues. That said, I think the BBC is under immense pressure to prove that it does not have a liberal bias - I think these heavy handed, almost angry interviews (this is by no means an anomaly) are their attempt to show impartiality (I sympathise with the pressure they are under - I donât think this tone is a solution).
I thought Mr Greenwald did a good job of explaining his position, showing his contempt for some of the questions but then stepping past his obvious irritation to still provide his clear and obviously reasoned view.
What are the questions he should have been asked? What are the âgood questions to attack him withâ?
have you considered the possibility that Ms. Wark is actually setting up a context in which Greenwald and his position looks even better than it already does? I heard someone reading unenthusiastically from a script of stupid questions, almost in disbelief her self at the stupid lines she had to read, but going along with it anyway so that Greenwald could stand up even more clearly for journalism, freedom and common sense.
But then again, perhaps not.
Normally I like the BBC, but here they got owned. It would have been better if a member or spokesperson for GCHQ was present too, to present the other side of the argument, so that the BBC presenter wasnât forced to take the government side.
Compare it with yesterdayâs post featuring the snivelling under-editor at the daily mail being cowed by Aliastair Campbell - again the underling is standing in for the cowardly boss, except here the BBC is the stooge for the government. There was no criticism of the use of terrorism laws, and the stripping of civil liberties (requirement for probable cause, right to silence, right to legal representation, eg have a solicitor present while questioned) pursued by the government against Greenwaldâs partner for what is clearly not a terrorism case.
Please read the posts before commenting on the headlines â the post is all about the bullying and the adversarial!
Does anyone know if thereâs a transcript anywhere? I canât play video, alas. I didnât find anything googling around.
âDo you think that people would be shocked that spies spy?â
âAre you concerned that youâve helped terrorists by telling them that theyâre being spied on?â
Good work there. Still better than most other media in the UK, worryingly.
You shouldnât have to be a lawyer to defend righteous action in a television interview, but in this case it probably doesnât hurt that he is one.
I wouldnât say she was âunprepared.â I would say she was dys-prepared. Her questions were only about Greenwald and not about the actual story. It is just sad that she would think that asking questions about the reporter of a story instead of the story itself is just depressing.
I havenât seen this yet but Iâm going to take your word for it. Thatâs mainly because Greenwald, or Glennzilla as heâs known, destroys everyone who takes him on. And heâs mean about it. Look at him dismantle Bill Maherâs reactionary atheist hate Islam argumentsâŚAlso hi from a fellow PittsburgherâŚyou need any comic or book reviews?
Wow, Wark really grasps at any straw she can. Hereâs a paraphrase of one part of the conversation:
Wark: Maybe these disclosures have made terrorists aware for the first time that they were being spied on.
Greenwald: Ridiculous, terrorists have always know that.
Wark: Well, then, um, isnât it obvious that spies spy?
Dear God: if you give me the chance to slap her silly face into shutting up, I promise to stop burning things that donât belong to me.
That was ⌠beautiful.
I watched this a few days ago. Your characterization of ms. Warkâs style as affected is exactly how I felt while watching it. It was almost as if Ted Baxter was giving the interview.
To me, it was patently obvious that she didnât understand the issues nor the technology, didnât read the background info (or if she did, only the backgrounder giving to her/them by the government), and relied, with great conviction, on her misinformation and on her tone of voice. Yes, she got her ass handed to her on a platter.
It would be fair to expect that she had watched other interviews Greenwald had given about this subject, no? Why was/is she so ill-informed? Ric Romero would have done a better job.
That âreportingâ was so gawd awful that I couldnât watch it a second time.
Paxmanâs weather reports:
Itâs a BBC interview; theyâre going to take whatever side the interviewee is against. Theyâre not going to make any criticisms about those things while talking to Greenwald, theyâre going to make them while talking to government officials.
Iâm reminded of some BBC election coverage I once watched where the presenter had representatives from the three parties, and asked each, in turn, how they felt about their particular party losing the election and being failures.
Itâs a very different style of interviewing, but I do think it can often work. In this case, it did give Greenwald a good platform to give very good answers to questions that might seem unprepared and combative, but in many cases are likely questions that many people watching might be wondering about. Itâs important to remember that BB readers have a somewhat different perspective on these matters, and are considerably more informed; questions that might seem uninteresting to us might be very interesting to people who are far less informed. That the interviewer didnât come out of it looking good is less important than that the interviewee was able to clearly make his points.
