http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fiery-clash-on-the-project-over-trump-people-like-you-lecture-and-heckle/news-story/ef97ba4001e3003a5808e94b46ecef2c
Quote:Fiery clash on The Project over Trump: ‘People like you lecture and heckle’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKPlNdf576U
CONTROVERSIAL broadcaster Steve Price has gone head to head with news.com.au columnist Jamila Rizvi on The Project, as the world reels from Donald Trump’s shock presidential win.
Appearing on the panel of Channel Ten show on Wednesday night, they engaged in a fiery exchange after Price claimed Rizvi interrupted him while they were discussing Hillary Clinton’s loss.
“It shows you that people in real America, in small town America, weren’t buying the bulldust coming out of the elites,” he said, before Rizvi jumped in.
“Sorry, can we cut this bull**** about the idea of there being a ‘real America?’” she hit back.
“I’m sorry, I was speaking before you interrupted,” Price replied tersely.
“Is it okay if I speak?”
After Rizvi pointed out the question was directed at her, he appeared to become more annoyed.
“This is the reason why Donald Trump won,” he said.
“Because people like you lecture and heckle people.”
The audience, along with the rest of the panel were visibly shocked, issuing a ‘whoa’ before co-host Carrie Bickmore stepped in.
“Pricey, we were talking to Jamila and you don’t need to keep that tone,” she said.
I found both the clip, and the news article fascinating.
The news article was fascinating, because it only described the negative descriptors for one person.
In the Clip, Panelist
A is talking when panelist
B interrupts and swears (saying 'bullshit').
A quite calmly points out that he was speaking, and
B keeps talking over the top of him.
A doesn't raise his voice, and asks
B if he can finish speaking.
B without break keeps talking over him.
A then says, rather resignedly 'I wasn't finished talking'...and
B continues talking over him.
Talking over another person has always been considered rude. Continually talking over another person when they ask several more times if they can finish, is very rude. But in the article, none of this is mentioned... it is only A, the male panelist, who is described in a negative way.
The other interesting part is that the panel itself ignored the lady panelists rudeness and swearing....but when, after being continually talked over, the male panelist made a valid observation “This is the reason why Donald Trump won. Because people like you lecture and heckle people.” - they turned on male panelist.
Why was his observation was valid? The reason for Trumps win is that he was talking about things people wanted their government to talk about...things had been silenced by political correctness (by politicians themselves), and
including the censureship that politically correct people engage in.
Personally, I don't like Trump. My opinion is he is a disaster waiting to happen.
That said, before he even won his parties nomination, my view was 'he would only win his parties nomination if politicians in the US had completely and utterly failed their constituents'. By that I meant they weren't talking about things people felt needed talking about / they weren't engaging in open and honest debate about perceived problems. And in doing so, they were seen to not be solving problems / out of touch with problems.
And in a different thread, I have pointed out that when politicians refuse to discuss obvious problems - the longer this refusal goes on, the more they lose the trust of the people, and the more likely the government is to lose control of the message.
So to me, the article / clip is interesting from the perspectives of : the effects of political correctness, and male/female interaction. How much each of those contributed to the reactions is up for debate
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace