Slimy NPR interviewer tries to setup Andrew Callaghan (All Gas No Brakes, Channel 5) with a failed “gotcha question”
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
There were a few loaded questions that Andrew handled quite well but I think that he failed to explain to her the reason that he as a documentarian (He prefers the term journalist and I think he is growing into the shoes.) is not seeking to show the news but rather to document exactly how absurd people are willing to be in our current social media and media ecosystem. None of those people who believe the stop the Steal shit still are likely to change their minds overnight but that day is going to come one day or they are going to Die addicted to a sick cow of toxic culture.
That said, I wouldn’t necessarily call her slimy so much as applying the tools of her trade and him masterfully responding.
You know what I had hated the most about the last seven years? The fact that most people are so used to this sort of gotcha journalism that they can’t see the difference between hacks and a person who is literally creating out of themselves a fool in order to get footage that no “reputable” news station can.
In my opinion, Andrew has learned a lot from how The Daily Show and Sacha Baron Cohen use characters to disarm people who would not feel comfortable [exposing themselves](https://youtu.be/0xkg0-bc3dw) on camera in the same way if they felt as though they were being interrogated rather than cajoled. Personally, I think they would make for excellent allies given just how unserious much of the right wing has become recently.
I am legitimately so happy with how he and the audience helped to disarm her and make Andrew look better than I think he ever has before. Legitimately, I know OP says she is slimy but they get real and it’s actually really cool to see her loosen up once they actually get past the initial awkward question. So glad to see her finally say “you go into chaos” and him agreeing by saying “He is the storm; I go into the storm!” And then they break into a conversation about her experiences with Hunter thompson. Oh my god, what a beautiful video and what a terrible clickbait title.
Awful phrasing from her. If she’d asked the question in a less accusatory way it would have been fine and she probably would have gotten a better interview overall. Seemed like he was less forthcoming after that question, understandably.
Also, big generation gap here. Feels like this interviewer just doesn’t get it.
Great interview. Lots of interesting questions.
I don’t think it was a slimy “gotcha” question.
*EDIT*
On watching this further, I really respect what she is doing here. She is digging into his technique, and questioning some of it as being a valid approach and why it’s the approach he chose.
Honestly, most journalists would not do what he did. So it’s a pretty valid question, and as she’s a standard journalist she’s laying it out in a pretty prickly manner knowing that this is something he should be able to handle. She even says as much.
I’m really trying to watch this, but this guys camera skills have made me sea sick.
This is the scary “neolib Biden-pilled” crowd he was getting on about? Oh brother. His responses were fine, not sure why him and his fans are so bent outta shape about it.
This is how normal people talk. It is not something profound. What happened to everyone on reddit? Have you looked back 8 years? This is the same story a different day. Am I losing my mind? I feel like reddit has become an Alzheimer’s simulator.
“Slimy NPR reporter”
That’s one you don’t hear often.
I am going to disagree with most people here and say this looks bad for Andrew. That fact that Andrew can’t take an even minor criticism of his style or film really shows how thin skinned he is. The question seems like a perfectly normal question to ask someone after watching the documentary. ‘Do you think it is at all hurtful to platform and humanize bad people?’ is effectively what she is asking, but he can’t answer so just deflects and pretends it’s some crazy biased question. Like that is the same discourse about this style of content that has been discussed for years, he should have a solid answer ready.
I fail to see how this is a set up. She asked him a question about a scene in his movie that could be viewed as enjoying time with Alex Jones. Something many people are not a fan of. Yes it could have been asked differently but it wasn’t.
Wow, your biases are really showing in that post title. If you listen to her often you’ll know she’s far from slimy. Kind of an odd question, but not a completely out-of-bounds one to ask someone who was filmed being very cozy with Alex Jones. She was satisfied with his explanation and context, and they moved on.
I’ve never heard and NPR reporter call someone despicable before, that was a little odd.
There is nothing more obnoxious than when Reddit latches on to a content creator and drives their own narrative. Your title is as “slimy” as your perception of the interviewer.
Slimy NPR?
>Shocked they didn’t recast her with a disabled trans BIPOC with vitiligo.
Oh, I see now. Didn’t have to go far into your post history,
Apparently very fair criticisms/hard questions are “slimy” now, lol. I love Channel 5 and Andrew, but the question she is asking is very fair. I’ve actually been losing some respect for Andrew with this press junket. He seems to get very bent out of shape very easily at even the most mild of criticism.
Slimy? It seems like she was trying to get genuine insight into his thought process and give him a chance to explain himself.
It was a valid question which I think he could have handled better, maybe she could have phrased it a little better as well.
Took me a minute to realize somehow a thread posted by and full of some of the biggest shitters that have evaded bans on Reddit made its way up enough in the votes to end up in my feed.
How is that “slimy”? Seems like a legit question to ask him why he played along with Jones.
It wasn’t that bad. I fail to see how she was being “slimy”. She allowed for plenty of explanation with minimal interruption, she was clearly listening because the following questions directly addressed what he said.
She asked him some tough questions, his answers in turn made him look great, good journalism.
What a dirty title. You’re a dick, OP. Take your bullshit agenda somewhere else bro, guarentee Andrew doesn’t agree with it.
I think this is reasonable from both sides. Her point is valid: Andrew often appears like he’s buddying up with his subjects in his videos, and that could certainly come off as implicit support. Giving somebody a platform through interviewing is one thing, but Andrew’s style is so casual and extreme from standard practice that it really does blur the line between providing a soapbox and adding a few more steps to shout from. Whatever that analogy means.
I wouldn’t call myself a journalist, but I studied it and worked briefly in the field and find myself so incredibly fascinated by the industry and modern discourse around journalism that Andrew has always presented an interesting figure to me. On one hand, as another commenter in this thread has noted, he’s a fantastic documentarian and is really doing an excellent job illustrating what Americans are doing and thinking every day… or at least, what comes out when a camera is pointed in their face and Andrew is somewhat goading them on. On the other hand, I find Andrew to occasionally be exploitative and insincere and his aforementioned platforming frequently crosses the line into a sticky camaraderie that I’m really not sure he as a quote unquote journalist should be getting into.
The guy’s not dumb, he responded to this valid question well. But I also don’t like how he immediately gets defensive, acts incredulous, and plays to the crowd. I get it – he’s human, and it’s not fair to expect him to act perfectly – but he also has a huge reach, is an unlikely trailblazer, and I personally feel needs to face a higher standard when he chooses to shine the light on subjects that really are dangerously manipulative and influential in current discourse.
Woo-whee. Big ole rant. Anyways OP, thanks for sharing, but also I disagree with your take and wish journalism commentary wasn’t bogged down by shit like this.
A couple things to clarify, as I was actually at this event last night
1. Due to the poor camerawork here, it’s kind of hard to see, but Andrew was rolling his eyes at her when she initially asked what he hoped to gain by hanging out with Alex Jones. Maybe that’s ok for some, but especially since he referred to himself as a “journalist” and not “documentary filmmaker”, i think its especially uncool and unprofessional to do that.
2. She should’ve re-phrased the question about Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, but I’m not sure it’s out of bounds to ask why you’d hang out with someone despicable as him for more than absolutely necessary. Her real objection was Andrew drinking with the psycho. Andrew mentioned wanting to gain his trust, but if that’s true then he knew he was pretending to buddy up with a terrible person just to get footage. Most ‘journalists’ wouldn’t consider that acceptable, especially without ever pushing back on his bs.
3. Although you hear some in the audience gasp at the question, the first two rows of that side of the stage were reserved–apparently for Andrew’s friends. So the person who filmed and people immediately around him/her weren’t representative of the entire audience reaction.
4. Their splitting of hairs about MSM I think is literally just a generational divide. Andrew meant that Fox News is MSM because they have big ratings. Her point is that because Fox News frequently lies and doesn’t fact check, they can’t be MSM.
5. By the end of the Q&A, they seemed to be on good terms. It was clear Andrew didn’t think he should have to explain himself for some of her Qs and (frankly) sometimes would look at the ground, his friends/people in the audience for support, while rolling his eyes at questions he didn’t think were acceptable. Her point was that he got an HBO documentary, so he should man up and answer questions since he’s on a real platform now.
BTW, I waited to watch the doc until last night’s screening. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a good watch. The family in Georgia is sad to watch, as are the kids in the projects only a few miles away. And the right-wing guy from NC is another level crazy.
I can understand why the lady asked the question. I dont think she was trying to catch Andrew off guard.
Lol this wasn’t slimy. Good question, good response. The whole interview was a good one.
Yeah, didn’t seem slimy at all, honestly. There’s nothing wrong with an interviewer asking pointed questions. If she hadn’t, the same people would probably accuse her of playing softball.
To me, it looked like she was trying to ruffle his feathers to see if he was a friend or a foe, you know, First Contact style. She threw a perfect 90mph fastball across the plate, and it was all on him to sink or swim. Turns out, he can apparently fly.
Once she realized that, she immediately relaxed, knowing she wasn’t dealing with some slimy political pundit, which I’m guessing is the norm for her
By the time they got talking about Hunter Thompson, they both seemed to be genuinely enjoying each other.
All in all, I think it was a well planned and successfully executed interview. I’m vaguely aware of the existence of All Gas, No Brakes, but these two people were unfamiliar to me before watching the video, so my opinion is pretty unbiased, I think… Cheers to both.
I really don’t think that was all that slimy. It wasn’t a good question but I don’t think it was meant to defame Andrew.
Jesus. This guy’s comment history is awful – he just complains