But also note that the moderator called the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of his inappropriate behaviour. If not sexism, this is at least a clear sign of ignorance.
> interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.
When a member yells out something from the audience to someone on stage: That's a heckle. They forced a break in the 4th wall. (yes, the audience member was right, but so was the moderator in that small instance)
Why do you feel that calling the person who interjected a "heckler" is a bad thing?
Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.
An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing this out!"
> Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.
That is an assumption based on your emotional connection to the word. No one believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)
> An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing this out!"
I would strongly disagree with that. It's impressive that he recognized the heckle, and didn't respond negatively. From what I saw he acknowledged the event and made the correction. For someone to do that on stage is VERY impressive. That takes a lot of experience and a lot of skill. (Many performers respond very negative to a heckle).
The heckle broke the 4th wall, it was processed by the moderator, acknowledged (mentally and then verbally) without anger (which requires processing and understanding), the suggestion (I'm being generous in that) was taken, and the moderator returned back to the 4th wall with the context prior.
That's a freaking amazing job.
Err meant to say: No one believes that the heckler's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)