@thaliasmusings

4 months ago

If Mr. O’Connor is interested in understanding why his interview with Mr. Hitchens went wrong, I’d like to share a few of my impressions, both after watching this podcast and the one in question: I have to admit after watching the interview between Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Hitchens, I feel for both sides. Peter Hitchens clearly didn’t come prepared to debate the topics at hand. Being interviewed is not the same thing as being debated, at least traditionally. Certainly, there are scenarios where an interviewer will ask tough questions but a good interviewer guides and directs conversation, they are not there to debate their guests but to lead a discussion. Mr. O’Connor is an incredible debater, a professional, and in many ways, an unparalleled one. But very few interviewees are. It takes time for most people, even those who have been in politics as long as Mr. Hitchens has been, to ponder and formulate their thoughts. Many writers, especially, find it easier to write their thoughts than to speak them. It would have been wise for Mr. Hitchens to research Mr. O’Connor’s podcasting style and professional history prior to accepting the invitation. But, it would have also been courteous of Mr. O’Connor to give Mr. Hitchens a heads up on his interview style. Certainly, Mr. Hitchens did not handle the situation well. But Mr. O’Connor has some things to learn as well. Rebuttals and questions are not the same thing. An interview is not the same thing as a debate. Most interviewees, if they knew they were going to be debating rather than discussing would turn Mr. O’Connor’s invitation down, not because their arguments aren’t valid but because they aren’t skilled in debate. If you’ve ever engaged in a debate, you’ll know what I’m talking about here. It is a very intense and highly practiced skill that most people are not versed in. You can see the point at which Mr. Hitchens’ demeanor turns, it is clearly when Mr. O’Connor’s speed of questioning increases and when his questions changed from more discussional to a simplified barrage of suggestion. Rather than reframing or finding a more patient and conversational approach when Mr. Hitchens starts to repeat himself, Mr. O’Connor turns to his debating background, realizing there is a seemingly weak point in Mr. H’s argument and using that weakness to exploit him. Mr. O values fleshing out weaknesses in arguments. It’s his career. But, again, an interview is not typically thought of as a debate. Mr. H did not go in to the interview expecting this. In between Mr. H’s incoherence, he was making some valid points that Mr. O should have recognized and respected as Mr. H was his guest, not his opponent. Unless a guest is made aware of the fact that they need to come prepared with notes in order to seriously argue certain points, it is, in my mind, bordering on rude to treat a friendly discussion as an argument that needs defending. It would be wise for Mr. O’Connor to give his future guests a heads up in his style before engaging them in this way. I found his point valid, but I also could see validity in Mr. H’s points as well. Walking out and becoming unfriendly was unprofessional of Mr. H, but his being triggered by the approach Mr. O took was not completely unwarranted. Just some thoughts. 🌿

33 |