Guarded praise, hedged by a major question
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I enjoy this podcast immensely. Its guests and topics are timely, and its analysis always probes beneath the surface. Much better than your run-of-the-mill news show.
But here’s a question: the distinguished Noam Chomsky was a guest, and you felt the need to contextualize his interview with a 7-minute preface in which you challenged — without, it must be said, offering much evidence of your own — much of what he would *go on* to say…
…but wouldn’t the time to offer these challenges, WITH evidence, have been DURING the interview?
Without offering an opinion of my own on the topics covered, I will say: that preface comes across as a gambit through which to present your editorial opinions unchallenged, and it opens you up to the charge of relying on unexamined assumptions in order to uphold the narrative of the status quo.
As it so happens, I’m not entirely in agreement with Noam Chomsky on every topic. I agree with him on many points … but where we disagree, because he presents his arguments so carefully and thoroughly, at least I understand where he’s coming from. And overall, I appreciate his willingness to present sensible narratives which counter an often-unquestioned dominant one.
So why, rather than discuss your disagreements with him, would you present your point-of-view as an unchallenged preemptive soliloquy prefacing his interview? Does Noam Chomsky get a rebuttal to your … pre-buttal?
I enjoyed the interview itself, but I was very disappointed by your preface. I cannot understand why you wouldn’t simply present your challenges to your interview subject DURING the interview.
This is a precarious time for journalism, with bad-faith actors across the conservative spectrum fully attacking the very existence of a free press. None of us are helped when a news outlet leaves itself open to being credibly charged with acting in bad faith.”
Ricky Tenderkiss via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/19/23
More reviews of World Review from the New Statesman
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Really enjoying this new podcast, nice to get view of events and a more in depth look at them.... love the fact you have unashamedly nicked ‘You Ask Us’ from one of my other fav podcasts 😬”
Freddie013 via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
06/28/20
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“…chatter-chatter with the ladies who stress about the climate & ‘popularism’. This is the pod where elitist college educated ladies are allowed too much time around the mic without proper supervision; always so angry and aggressive; always making sweeping statements around ‘climate science’...”Read full review »
Steetwise via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
11/18/23
“This is a really interesting and incisive take on the major issues in world affairs; it manages to be concise but expansive, detailed without being overwrought. Emily and Jeremy are great hosts whose questions lead to fascinating discussion with a range of equally fascinating guests.
I’m hooked.”
edoardofortese via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
12/12/20
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
