• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Topic: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    I don't often agree with Hannity and Colmes, but on this one I do.

    http://exchristian.net/2/2006/04/repent.html

    This is a case of a misguided missle.

  2. #2

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    She's awful!

    This is just sick.
    Sean Patrick Hannifin
    My MP3s | My Melody Generator | my album
    "serious music" ... as if the rest of us are just kidding

  3. #3

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    My question is, why do they even put this woman on the air and allow her to spew this nuttiness? They're just giving her exactly what she wants.

    Ignore her and her idiot family and they will go away.
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  4. #4

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    My question is, why do they even put this woman on the air and allow her to spew this nuttiness? They're just giving her exactly what she wants.

    Ignore her and her idiot family and they will go away.
    Good point, I agree. Of course news programs like Hannity and Colmes always like something that will stir people up, it's good for business, more people watch.
    Sean Patrick Hannifin
    My MP3s | My Melody Generator | my album
    "serious music" ... as if the rest of us are just kidding

  5. #5

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    I thought that the interviewers were all idiots. If you believe the person you are interviewing is a nutcase then you have to believe that allowing them to speak will bring out the fallacies in their arguments. The purpose of the interview should have been investigation of her thought process. Offensive or not, she should have been allowed to speak and the interviewers should have switch to "active" listening. As it was, I found them pretty gutless and intellectually ineffective. They did nothing to further their cause or diminish hers. It was a total waste of time since I didn't understand her any better after the interview than I did before.

    Ernie

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by ohernie
    I thought that the interviewers were all idiots. If you believe the person you are interviewing is a nutcase then you have to believe that allowing them to speak will bring out the fallacies in their arguments. The purpose of the interview should have been investigation of her thought process. Offensive or not, she should have been allowed to speak and the interviewers should have switch to "active" listening. Ernie
    That's an interesting point you make there about the interviewer and completely valid. Here in England, if an intereviewer reacted in that way for say, the BBC - they would almost certainly be fired. One of our very greatest interviewers is a guy called Jeremy Paxman - who is even more sarcastic than I am - would have dealt with this more or less in the same way - but then you wouldn't have noticed it. Subtle is name of the game - not leading an audience. That is ~~~~ing patronizing.

    The American interviewer in this case is completely correct in some ways in the assumptions he makes - BUT, they are HIS assumptions - WHICH, therefore leads the American audience, THUS, making the interviewer more like a court case style prosecutor, rather than an unbiased - what, why, when open style Q&A.

    But hey! Maybe Americans prefer it this way. Cefax - for the hard of thinking.


  7. #7

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulR
    That's an interesting point you make there about the interviewer and completely valid. Here in England, if an intereviewer reacted in that way for say, the BBC - they would almost certainly be fired. One of our very greatest interviewers is a guy called Jeremy Paxman - who is even more sarcastic than I am - would have dealt with this more or less in the same way - but then you wouldn't have noticed it. Subtle is name of the game - not leading an audience. That is ~~~~ing patronizing.

    The American interviewer in this case is completely correct in some ways in the assumptions he makes - BUT, they are HIS assumptions - WHICH, therefore leads the American audience, THUS, making the interviewer more like a court case style prosecutor, rather than an unbiased - what, why, when open style Q&A.

    But hey! Maybe Americans prefer it this way. Cefax - for the hard of thinking.

    It is important to note that Hannity and Colmes is not a show where the hosts are "interviewers" and they are reporting on news. They are not journalists or reporters or interviewers. They are political commentators and the show is a political debate show. The whole point is to debate politics. Sean is the conservative voice on the show, Alan is the liberal voice. Hence the show's balance of ideals...in the US anyway. This is one topic where they both agreed and basically went after the guest with hard cutting attacks. Usually that does not happen since Alan and Sean disagree on most everything.

    There are other news shows on Fox News that are simply talking heads reporting on the news without commentary...those shows are mostly during the day. In the evenings, the commentary shows take over. Most people do not understand the difference...but there is one and it is great. They are not supposed to be unbiased on this show. They are supposed to spur debate and challenge ideals, even those of their guests. It is one reason why the show is one of the top rated shows on all cable news (along with Bill O'Reilly, another commentary show from a political independant).
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  8. #8

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
    It is important to note that Hannity and Colmes is not a show where the hosts are "interviewers" and they are reporting on news. They are not journalists or reporters or interviewers. They are political commentators and the show is a political debate show. The whole point is to debate politics.
    So instead of being a piss poor example of interviewing it was a piss poor example of debate?

    Ernie

  9. #9

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulR
    But hey! Maybe Americans prefer it this way.
    Yup. The concept of deferring to anything, even intellect, is not part of the American way anymore. It's all about testosterone and control.

    OT: There was a book published about a decade ago where the author wrote about the lack of intellectuals and intellectual thinking in public forums. His point was that intellectuals had retreated to the ivory towers of colleges so the average person didn't come into come into contact with logic and thinking at anything above a mundane level in mass media. I think it's safe to say that there is currently an anti-intellect bias in America. I never picked the book up but it stuck in my mind and given the current situation, as exemplified by the interview, it seems all the more relevant.

    Anybody heard of it?

    Ernie

  10. #10

    Re: Ms. Phelps speaks to Hannity and Colmes

    Quote Originally Posted by ohernie
    Yup. The concept of deferring to anything, even intellect, is not part of the American way anymore. It's all about testosterone and control.

    OT: There was a book published about a decade ago where the author wrote about the lack of intellectuals and intellectual thinking in public forums. His point was that intellectuals had retreated to the ivory towers of colleges so the average person didn't come into come into contact with logic and thinking at anything above a mundane level in mass media. I think it's safe to say that there is currently an anti-intellect bias in America. I never picked the book up but it stuck in my mind and given the current situation, as exemplified by the interview, it seems all the more relevant.

    Anybody heard of it?

    Ernie
    Yeah...that's it. Americans are dumb overall. No intellect any more, except for the college professors. All hail the professors. They will save us one day.

    How did they ever get to be such a super power in the world?
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •