Some mean-spirited interviews are actually great for the interviewee
2008, Governor Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric
This interview was critical and fair and clearly made the bad interviewee out to be unqualified for any job as she brought this disaster on herself.
When John McCain ran for president he seemed old and boring compared to Barack Obama who ran the best presidential campaign ever seen. The unknown Sarah Palin was selected as his vice-president partner to be the young energetic voice in the campaign appealing to Christians, women and young voters. Was she well-vetted and ready? The liberal, smart and very critical journalist put her to a test as great as any. America didn’t know much about her before that as she had only done 2 interviews so far. If she could go toe-to-toe with an intelligent person who didn’t believe her cause she could do anything — she didn’t though. The interview went so bad that SNL just had to adjust a few remarks in the dialogue to make it into a funny skit.
Later Katie Couric and a CNN host talked about different perceptions of the interview. According to the CNN host “some” have said that Couric had unfair gotcha questions. Which is also a critique the excellent Game Change (2012) movie depicts. Couric in response says that even John McCain praised the interview.
I had a crappy answer. But it was a fair question.
This interview is largely seen as fair and direct as it was with someone wanting to take on one of the highest political positions in USA. It harmed the interviewee as there was nowhere to hide for her. She herself made her bed. But what often happens when the interview and not the answers are seen as a joke?
2018, Jordan Peterson Channel 4 News interview
This interview illustrates how easy it is to avoid getting caught on the wrong foot when the interviewer is actually unfair instead of being critical. Over the top attack-questions sound so silly and mean to anyone hearing them that the interviewee is bound to look good after this.
But even so, when Jordan Peterson was interviewed by Channel 4 News with Cathy Newman it caused a big outrage. Douglas Murray in The Spectator described it as; “Cathy Newman’s catastrophic interview with Jordan Peterson”. But Murray also wrote this:
If I was Channel 4 I would take it down. If I was Cathy Newman I would sue or seek a super-injunction. I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.
The interview did in fact present Cathy Newman as completely clueless about psychology and interviewing intelligent people - because she is. For some reason, she tried to make Peterson look like a political fringe mad-hatter. Unfortunately for her Peterson is a psychology professor of the highest order focusing on the science, not the moral message. At the end one person looked clueless and the other got positive exposure around the world because it seems looks like big media is trying to ruin him by just inventing claims about him.
Here the outrage was a great support for Peterson that very clearly illustrated that it was a botched hit job. The outrage did help him, but even without it I think he would have been seen as the rational voice in the debate.
Was Cathy in the wrong? On one hand Cathy’s job is in fact to ask critical questions and at times be irritating. One may argue that she did her job the best way she knows how. Which unfortunately turned out to not be that well in this case. But the notion of her having good intentions but failing seems somewhat dispelled as she played the victim card instead of apologizing or explaining herself. These kind of victim cards are played so much in self-defense that I think the large public knows to be critical of them. Maybe she did in fact get threatening messages, but she still could have responded to the interview instead of just hiding behind something else. Peterson was made a victim and got support. Cathy afterward played a victim to gain support which is a more unsteady ground.
Some may still call this interview unfair. But most academics dream of this kind of interview that makes them look smart while also bringing attention to their academic work. Overall this made Peterson a lot of money and he didn’t complain about the interview itself. It may have been an unfair interview in some sense, but it was a great interview for Peterson, psychology and science overall. Even Cathy Newman became a notorious name after the interview. It was a nasty trap that caught the creator herself in it and you should wish that all good scientists get such interviews. They deserve them. Even a blind monkey can outdebate Cathy Newman.
2020, CNN gives Elizabeth Warren an anti-Bernie Sanders question
This interview to me seems like a big miss for CNN and Warren and a big win for Sanders. But that’s just my opinion.
In a Democrat’s presidential candidate debate, CNN asked Sanders if he ever told Warren that a woman couldn’t become president. He responds that he never said that. The very next question is to Elizabeth Warren asking her what she felt when Sanders claimed that a woman would be unlikely to win the White House. It’s a very iffy question as it proposes that he actually said it even though nothing points to that. In fact, Sanders has said the opposite for 30 years on video so it even seems very out of character. And, you know, he just dispelled the claim directly.
Warren, of course, agreed with the CNN question to her. Then after the debate, when they still had mics on, Warren seemed to argue with Sanders about something and refusing to shake his hand. Later CNN released this talk between them:
“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she said. After initially suggesting they talk about the matter another time, Sanders shot back: “You called me a liar.”
This feels a bit planned and fake. No matter the intention.
It looks like CNN set Sanders up for failure because they wanted Warren to be the front-runner. Which itself feeds into a lot of conspiracy theories as they purposely or not fed Hillary Clinton questions when she ran for president. Or were they just being ignorant and misleading?
Either way that terrible question and Warren’s behavior makes it seem like she set this up with CNN to defeat Sanders. A hit job that ended up hitting the hitwoman herself. A candidate seemingly supported by big media in a scummy way is not a good look as voters hate feeling manipulated into making a choice. Which is why it seems like voters reacted negatively to her after this while Sanders gained some respect. Most likely CNN is just trying to create drama after drama to gain viewership. But it could cost them in the long run if this becomes something they are known for. Presidential debates are still seen as something prestigious so CNN cheapening them may feel wrong for some people.
Yet again the channel and the interviewer are losing on this and the interviewee comes out the victor. You just cannot fool the audience this way unless you are in full control of the editing. People intuitively know how to spot lies and unfair questions no matter their intelligence.
Conclusion
Some interviews that are seen as hit jobs that hurt the interviewee actually do the very opposite thing. We call them bad interviews and are outraged. But in reality these interviews may irritate more than they harm. Elizabeth Warren seems a bit desperate which is a negative trait in a politician. Jordan Peterson’s interview with a big channel illustrated that his complains about SJWs and unfair left-leaning media being willfully ignorant are warranted as he in the interview is attacked mercilessly from start to finish without his points even being listened to. Sarah Palin on the other hand just failed a strong interview and would probably wish she could call it a hit job to at least gain sympathy from some groups. But for her there is nowhere to hide as the interview was unfortunately legit.
Often the trap being set up is so clear and direct that the interviewee can easily avoid the shots and gain points by being seen as a victim needing help. The large public can see through a bad interview as easily as they can spot a clear lie. So they won’t be fooled by such an interview anytime soon and it would be foolish to think that they will.
If you wanted to make someone look great you’d give them these kind of unfair interviews. But if the person doesn’t have good answers the person will fail anyhow. And that’s maybe fine too.
