Machiavellian said:
NightlyPoe said:
Not all of them were bad. A lot legit have explanations. That also has to be understood. Sometimes an outrage isn't really an outrage. We are living in a time of internet outrage over half-quotes and it really should be okay to push back against those cases. However, he has owned up to several quotes that he considers wrong and said as much in this interview.
I suspect Shaprio wishes he had this one back, but that doesn't mean that the interview was conducted professionally.
|
When you are interviewed, its never good to be argumentative. The reason why is that you never get your point across and you look petty. Lets take the first question that triggered Ben which was the Georgia Ban on abortion. So the interview guy specifically stated going backwards and gave 2 examples. This triggered Ben who had an opportunity to explain why he believed the ban was a good thing and to explain why those 2 examples were legit but instead he concentrated on the farming of the question got argumentative and end up not answering the question or giving his opinion on the issue.
He also did not own up to any of his bad quotes. He told the interviewer to go to a website and read up on it but he had the chance in the interview to give his side. The only people who will go to his site are the people who already follow him. If Ben is trying to show a different side of himself he had the opportunity during the interview to do so. You cannot sit there and preach about change then get all arrogant and defensive about previous ills in his past. If anything I came away from that interview believing his book is only facade and the person who wrote is still the same person who made those quotes.
|
This is one of the main problems though. People like Trump and Ben put stuff out there and yet the media goes after them for those same things over and over. When you're the type of person who goes out of their way to lay things out as easily and clearly as possible in advance, and then you have opposition constantly ask you about those same things over and over, especially when it's beyond old news, it no doubt is really going to get on your nerves. The point in spending the time in advance was so you didn't have to waste time later, as well as trying to stop anyone from bringing it up later to use against you. If your audience requires your media platform to get Ben or Trumps view on things, they'll give you a shot if you're going to be legit, but if you're looking to make a fool of them, then your audience can pay money to find out more about them. As far as Ben would be concerned, it's their loss and it's mostly because of the platform, not him.
Ben put's info on his website and writes books, and then people want him to go over it all again. Now if it was legit and they just wanted to know what he meant, that's one thing, but when they are trying to make him look bad he's not going to have it. It's like Trump and his billions lost. Everyone already knows. He even laid it out on The Apprentice, that he was super deep in debt and crawled his way out. He even has a book called The Art of The Comeback. This is why they go on the offensive so quickly. They already have gone over this, and you can find out more for free in some ways, and pay in others, like for their books. Since their opposition likely wouldn't go to the trouble, or clearly hasn't, why should they go to the trouble of explaining what they already have over and over?
