On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
> You want to explain this? I am sometimes deeply critical during Amy
> Goodman interviews of her not having done her homework adequately. She
> lets things by than I know are bullshit. Some of that is probably due
> to limited time, wishing to move on to the next question, and knowing
> she can get a guest to rebut it later in the segment. But I'm pretty
> sure some of it is because she has not done sufficient research to
> recognize it as bullshit. In spite of this serious flaw in her
> interviewing style, I think overall she makes a major positive
> contribution with her show. You think otherwise strongly enough to
> actually be hostile to her?
She does good work, but she embodies the moral-exhortatory style that I was criticizing. "Torture!!!!" "Corruption!!!!" "Outrage!!!!!" But she really doesn't know much of the material she's supposed to be covering. The style is in her voice, too - anyone but the already- converted would almost certainly change the station. It's in the break music, too. Too much pamphletismo, that great word I learned from Ned Sublette.
Doug