The hilarious part doesn't come from Shapiro's predictable views about abortion, but rather in his insistence that Andrew Neil is a liberal figure disguised as an objective journalist. In fact, Neil is a famous conservative in the U.K., and is chairman of The Spectator. Here are a few lines about that magazine, courtesy of Wikipedia:
Its principal subject areas are politics and culture. Its editorial outlook is generally supportive of the Conservative Party…Editorship of The Spectator has often been a step on the ladder to high office in the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. Past editors include Boris Johnson (1999-2005) and other former cabinet members Iain Macleod, Ian Gilmour, and Nigel Lawson.
And again, Andrew Neil is the Chairman. He was also the editor of the Sunday Times for a decade, which is a conservative newspaper owned by none other than Fox News mastermind Rupert Murdoch. So as you see, Neil isn't just a conservative, but a very famous one.
Date: May 10th, 2019 12:35 PM Author: stimulating crimson box office famous landscape painting
Neil rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, has frequently misrepresented the science of climate change on his BBC programmes, and has frequently invited non-scientists and climate change deniers to debate climate change on his BBC programmes.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS.[18][52][53][54] In 1990, The Sunday Times serialized a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.[53] Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug AZT as harmful, and characterized the WHO as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."[53] That same year, he wrote that the Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticized the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.[19]
Date: May 10th, 2019 1:51 PM Author: stimulating crimson box office famous landscape painting
Neil rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, has frequently misrepresented the science of climate change on his BBC programmes, and has frequently invited non-scientists and climate change deniers to debate climate change on his BBC programmes.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS.[18][52][53][54] In 1990, The Sunday Times serialized a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.[53] Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug AZT as harmful, and characterized the WHO as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."[53] That same year, he wrote that the Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticized the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.[19]
Date: May 10th, 2019 1:28 PM Author: stimulating crimson box office famous landscape painting
that's his schtick and this idiocy usually works for him. gets his legions of braindead followers to repost his videos showing him "DESTROYING" some dweeb college student or vapid talking head.
Ben got absolutely killed there and didn't realize a) how interviews in the UK go generally, and b) who the interviewer was.
The interviewer wasn't being snide when he said that they always challenge whoever they are interviewing with the opposing view and giving them an opportunity to rebut it. That's what the BBC has done in every single BBC interview I've seen. The fact that he didn't realize that the interviewer was on the right doesn't change that - in the UK they consider that format "part of the job."
I mean, I have mixed feelings on him. He is fighting the "ban anyone not a shitlib from colleges" effort so that's a huge plus. He seems to attract people to his lectures.
Date: May 11th, 2019 11:39 PM Author: Multi-colored avocado station puppy
what threw shapiro off
disclosure: me too
is that the interviewer presented shitlib opinions and characterizations of shapiro as seemingly his own or his channel's own opinions rather than those of shapiro's opposition
in the us, regardless of your personal opinion, if you are a "good" journalist you will frame questions in a more neutral manner, such as "your opposition claims..." or "those on the other side of the political aisle have a problem with your position on abortion, claiming it is..."
this guy would leave out the attribution part
shapiro has acknowledged he fucked up assuming incorrectly