Would this be a stupid way to do an interview? I have a feeling it would:
Say, for example, that Charlton Heston is on the today show, as he was this morning, and again the interviewer has this exchange:
A--"Are you willing to compromise with the President?"
H--"Well, we've said again and again that the bill could have passed with or without our support with the 24-hour background check--"
A--"But the President wants 72 hours!"
She seemed genuinely offended, as if giving the prez everything he wants actually is her definition of compromise--even interrupted Moses to exclaim her disbelief. Would it be stupid for the interviewee then to sit back silently, looking puzzled, and when the interviewer notices that he's not answering questions, to say:
"I'm trying to figure out what your last statement meant. You claimed you were in favor of compromise, and when I offered one you objected on the grounds that it wasn't everything my opponent wanted. Do you even realize that that is NOT what compromise means? Compromise means that both sides get and both sides give--so why would you expect us to give the president everything and get nothing in return, and call it compromise?
My guess is that this would be decried for the next few weeks as an ambush of the poor interviewer, whining, inability to answer tough questions, etc. and the interviewee might not ever be invited back. But would it be worth it?
Say, for example, that Charlton Heston is on the today show, as he was this morning, and again the interviewer has this exchange:
A--"Are you willing to compromise with the President?"
H--"Well, we've said again and again that the bill could have passed with or without our support with the 24-hour background check--"
A--"But the President wants 72 hours!"
She seemed genuinely offended, as if giving the prez everything he wants actually is her definition of compromise--even interrupted Moses to exclaim her disbelief. Would it be stupid for the interviewee then to sit back silently, looking puzzled, and when the interviewer notices that he's not answering questions, to say:
"I'm trying to figure out what your last statement meant. You claimed you were in favor of compromise, and when I offered one you objected on the grounds that it wasn't everything my opponent wanted. Do you even realize that that is NOT what compromise means? Compromise means that both sides get and both sides give--so why would you expect us to give the president everything and get nothing in return, and call it compromise?
My guess is that this would be decried for the next few weeks as an ambush of the poor interviewer, whining, inability to answer tough questions, etc. and the interviewee might not ever be invited back. But would it be worth it?
