Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtobey1 | Hacker News Reader

I think the end of this post misses the point of Ezra Klein's interviews. You can listen to him podcast about podcasting, and he explains very clearly what his goals are when he talks to someone. He's an interviewer, not a debater. His goal is to guide the person he's talking to critical places that explain their own world view, not to win an argument with them or get them to admit that they're making up a silly anecdote like they don't know their address, because thats counter productive the the goal of helping his audience understand their viewpoint. I listened to this, I marked what a ridiculous metaphor that was, and how inapplicable it is the to topic of learning math, and didn't need Ezra to call it out.

View on HN

That's not an interview, that's at best stenography and at worse sycophancy.

If, for example, an interviewee said in all seriousness "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" would you expect the interviewer to go go "Hmmm very interesting. Why do you think that?"

No.

It is vital that interviewers challenge the subject. Especially when they say something profoundly ludicrous or disturbing. Otherwise they might has well just be in PR.

No it’s not. There’s a trade off to make between letting someone explain themselves and challenging them. The audience has their own braincells and can make their own decisions on what they are hearing.

Actually yes if a interviewee said something like that I’d like to know why they’re saying that because it doesn’t make sense to me!

If a leading politician says something deranged like "all crime is caused by gay people" - should the newspaper simply report that verbatim? Or should they say "the President lied today, and here are the facts that shows he is wrong"?

Sometimes it helps for institutions to point out the the emperor has no clothes. The social reinforcement of norms is hugely influential.

Reporting and interviewing are completely different exercises with different goals and motivations.

OK. If you interview the President and he repeatedly lies - is it OK to just publish that interview? Or should you push back on those lies? Do you owe it to your audience to let them know the king is mad?

The risk, of course, is that you don't get invited back. That's "The Test" in the post.

You can have different types of interview, they don't all have to be permissive or challenging. If someone said "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" during a podcast interview what good is it going to do for the interviewer to challenge that? The interviewee has already declared something horrendous, telling them they're beyond the pale on the spot is unlikely to change anything. Asking them why would be much more valuable since they could expose more of their deranged fantasies (at least in this scenario) which would subject them to even more revulsion and scrutiny by listeners. If you watch police interrogations this is often the tactic used even in the most horrendous crimes. They aren't confrontational, they don't denounce, they often don't even challenge inconsistencies at first. They let people speak and encourage them to say more or go over something they talked about previously in more detail. It appears almost friendly or compassionate to a casual observer but they're really just giving the subject more rope to hang themselves with.

If you publish a podcast where your guest encourages heinous behaviour without you challenging - that's a you problem.

Saying "Well, our listeners can decide for themselves" is a cowardly cop-out.

You might not be able to change the interviewee's mind but you can sure as hell send social signals to your audience that you condemn their views or think they're ludicrous.

Case in point - why are you trying to change my mind here? You're pushing back because you want to signal to others that my point of view is incorrect. That sort of basic interrogation seems completely missing in (especially American) media.

You're assigning motives to me that I don't have. Maybe that is the distinction, you think how you appear to an audience is important, I'm viewing this no differently than I would a private conversation. I'm not performing or signalling to anyone.

Why are you pushing back at me in a private conversation then?

Why wouldn't you do the same if I said something outrageously offensive in public?

This really isn't the same thing as an interview. I'm not talking to you for the benefit of an audience or as a way to document your thoughts. I'm saying what I think and responding to what you think (and accuse me of thinking). I'm expressing my own opinion, I'm not trying to win a debate or make myself look good.

> He's an interviewer, not a debater.

It could be argued the role of an interviewer is to present and understand the interviewee and their views, to dig deep into their unique knowledge.

An interview which is just “it’s sunny outside, isn’t it” isn’t a very good interview, and neither is one where the interviewee says “I genuinely believe there is a portal to heaven and hell in the butthole of my pet chicken” and the interviewer moves to the next question without a followup.

You don’t need to debate a guest to challenge their views.

> I listened to this, I marked what a ridiculous metaphor that was, and how inapplicable it is the to topic of learning math, and didn't need Ezra to call it out.

A good interviewer wouldn’t just “call it out” to the audience, they would ask the interviewee to expand on the topic. They would put themselves in the shoes of their viewers (who the interview is for) and ask what is interesting to them.

> His goal is to guide the person he's talking to critical places that explain their own world view

Doing that well should inevitably involve challenging your guest's framing of certain issues. As an absurd example, if you ask the guest why they spin around 3 times when they stand up and they say, "better that than doing three somersaults", you would be doing your audience a huge disservice by asking your guest how they assess the relative difficulty of spins versus somersaults.

Why Jensen Huang thinks a fabulously wealthy person not knowing their own address is analogous to a child not learning basic math skills would be, in my opinion, much more interesting and informative of his viewpoint than the actual point he was trying to make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com