Andrew Callaghan: “correcting people doesn’t work.” During interview with Robin Young at WBUR Boston 

She's good at it. That's exactly what NPR wants her to do

Shes very good at her job, this is just a extremely older generation of journalist vs andrew who has a pretty new experimental style.

Clips have a time limit! You can search “Andrew Callaghan interview” and you’ll see the full thing

That's a pretty weak understanding of what happened in the interview. I watched the whole thing and saw an overall congenial and congratulatory exchange - she praised his interviewing skills several times throughout. There were a few moments of Andrew not understanding where the questions were going, but the interviewer actually has a point here - The purpose of confronting the people he's interviewing isn't to change the minds of the person he's interviewing - it's to remind the viewer of how insane the position of the people being interviewed is. The irony here is that he actually does this in the movie at the end - He confronts the "inglorious patriot" with evidence of his past felony sexual assault with a minor conviction - but that is the only instance where he does it. The purpose of doing so wasn't to change the mind of the interviewee, but to show the viewer just how hypocritical and illogical he was. The NPR interviewer wasn't "attacking" Andrew here, she was trying to ask why he doesn't do that for all of the interviews in his film, and Andrew took offense and responded defensively.

@@scottwarner9856 Imagine using large adjectives in three in a sad attempt to come off as intelligent

@@NoName-uf6rf Imagine thinking any of the adjectives I used were "large." 🤣

@@scottwarner9856 I think you're the one with a weak understanding of what was happening bud. The documentary was very much a commentary on the toxicity of media echo chambers and the vilification of the other side by political pundits, which Andrew refuses to do because he approaches his subjects with a spirit of curiosity, if not outright empathy. The thing that she couldn't seem to understand was how he could just let these people talk without virtue signaling and correcting them the whole time. He said constantly reminding people that you think they're wrong doesn't change their mind and it stifles the kind of genuine feelings that he's so good at getting people to express. The viewer can see for themselves that these people's positions are insane, they don't need some twat from the media insulting their intelligence by spoon feeding it to them. The only reasons to do that are because you think you're viewers are too stupid to come to the correct conclusion themselves, or the journalist wants their audience to know how good and smart they are compared to the crazy ignorant people they're owning with low effort gotcha BS. The main difference between their approaches is that Andrew respects his interview subjects and his audience more than any mainstream media sources. And maybe you can say she wasn't outright attacking him but she was talking down to him and being an annoying lib scold which is even more annoying and nefarious because when he was getting close to calling her out on it she slithered away from any confrontation by acting like he was being unreasonable for being offended, which he had every right to be in my opinion.

@@scottwarner9856 😬

You don't make a case that Andrew is in the wrong. He's being interviewed. He was misquoted a number of times. Was it the Enquirer? Was it the Sentinel? Either way, she misunderstood what Andrew was saying entirely with the quote. Is that, to you, being in the right? You leave out the embarrassing moments. She seems confused. This is sort of her schtick--she goes unprepared into interviews. But Robin, clearly, did less preparing than usual. It's her thing. It's embarrassing for her, specifically. If anyone's in the wrong, it's NPR for putting her in a position she no longer is fit for.

Nah, Andrew is in the right with not correcting people while interviewing them. I worked as a journalist for a while and I can tell you that correcting someone or disagreeing with them in an interview will lead to the interview becoming an argument or ending entirely. Actually, her interview with Andrew here is a case in point. Numerous times she attempts to "correct" him which only backfires and there are numerous times in her interview where the two of them are arguing. Just goes to show that the old school way of journalism doesn't work anymore.

@@raylot13 If you spent a day working as a journalist you would not be saying what you just did. There are ALWAYS disclaimers in real journalism, or voice-over corrections. Andrew puts on a good show, but that's actually all it is - more exploitative circus-wrangling than actual interviewing.

@@scottwarner9856 found the annoying scoldy lib. Why don't you go watch some cnn to purge yourself from whatever offends you about Andrew's reporting

@@scottwarner9856 Sure, you could correct them in them after the fact but during an interview while talking to them? No lmfao, that is an awful idea. Like I said, doing so would cut the interview short or will turn the interview into an argument. Now, if you want and something I would do, asking them questions or hypotheticals that may go against their opinions is a better way to approach things then just straight telling them "No, you're wrong." And I'm curious if you even watched the documentary. Yes, there's humorous moments but I don't think Andrew is ever exploitative of the people that he is speaking too.