Naomi should have been concise and to the point. I love her but she came off lame in this exchange. You have to know what kind of shit storm you're getting in to in this setting.

Extraordinary Rendition, Black sites, Blackwater, H.R. 1955- there is just so much she could have hit him with.

And of course, he's a dickhead.

I don't think she should be held accountable for that interview's out come. That interviewing style is like knocking on some ones head and asking them to name 10 candy bars. That man like many of the Fox talking heads is a tool.

Teapot! How does this stuff pass for a proper interview in your country?

Interviewer: "First Question?"

Interviewee: "First Answ-"

Interviewer: "New Question?"

Interviewee: "Continued First Answ-"

Interviewer: "You didn't answer my New Question!"

Interviewee: "Okay, New Answ-"

Interviewer: "Are you dodging my First Question?"

Interviewee: "...No. Let me speak."

Interviewer: "Sorry we're out of time, 'America-hater'."

FuckedNoise is a shit channel.

Frank:

Very good point.

The male "interviewer" says in his intro:

"[Naomi] compares President Bush to dictators like Hitler and Stalin..."

This is classic Fox News/Republican speak. Any reasonable person understands that Ms. Wolf is not suggesting President Bush wants to exterminate the Jews or the Ukrainians.

Naomi would have performed better if she immediately dismissed his ridiculous statement. She could then outline her argument without being limited by his producer's talking points.

Of course, Frank's right. That guy is a prick.

It is very difficult for me to watch such interviews. It is truly nothing but noise. I don't live in the US so I don't get to watch these programs except through blogs. I am familiar with the work of Fox, but this interview is one of the most painful I have ever watched. He talks over her, he doesn't give her a chance to finish off her sentences, and he has NO IDEA what he's talking about. It's like there is absolutely no ability for him to be reflective. Naomi Wolf is not the only to bring up these issues, and none of what she says is out of line. This is the type of discussion intellectuals and academics are having both in the US and the rest of the world. I don't think she should be blamed for how the interview was conducted. She did the best she could. She was articulate, informed, calm and collected. That is all one needs as a professional civilized interviewee.

Plus, this has nothing to do with whom we are going after. He says that these detainees have no respect for laws. Even if we accept this for all detainees, it still does not make it OK for us to break the law. This whole war is based on us defending our civilization, a civilization based on respect for rule of the law. If we have no respect for laws, then really we have become just like those we choose to fight right now. In other words, if they are the monstrous Other, what would that make us?

She sounded like a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. "Bush did bad things and took our freedoms away." While this is true, no one on television takes it seriously.

I don't think complaining to talking heads is going to change anything, anyway. If people want a change in government, then they're going to have to either (a) wait until the next election or (b) overthrow it, themselves.

I found this conversation both deeply infuriating and sadly typically. I also disagree in part with the concision point, because I think there is a much broader and deeper issue here. Ms. Wolfe tried to present a nuanced argument--not all of which I personally agree with, incidentally--because the reality of the situation is extremely complex. Although I think she fails rhetorically (about which more in a moment), I do think she is right to complain about our failure in the US, particular in the media, to establish a "democratic discourse," one in which argument and evidence, not sloganeering and fear-mongering, are the acknowledged authorities. The failure, the disheartening thing about conversations like this, is their undisguised puerility: complex issues are reduced to a few talking points, fears superficially eased by nonsense, and all is considered settled.

For instance, it is indeed a very hard question: what do we do with people for whom know, on good evidence, that they wish to harm the US, and may have information about further intended harms? But the issue about secret prisons and wire-tapping is NOT whether or not such people should be ignored or go unpunished; it's about the legal (or, in our case, extra-legal) mechanisms we use to identify and assess them. The reason we have habeas corpus and other legal protections is not to protect the guilty, but the innocent: this is because you need evidence to prove that someone is engaged in such activities, and to protect the innocent from unfair punishment (or, in our country, illegal punishment, such as torture). This issue was simply misplaced in the discussion.

Naomi let the interview control the rhetorical ground. She simply ought not to have accepted the interviewer's description of prisoners of war as "enemy combatants," because latter BY DEFINITION have no legal protections. She ought to have pointed out that there is a difference between being suspected, and being guilty, and that this is a central reason why legal mechanisms, and the necessity of oversight of them, exist.

If you find anything I've said convincing, let me ask: I don't think Naomi is to blame for the ways in which the interview went wrong. I do think that the kinds of rhetorical displacement that took place are typically and profoundly disturbing. How do we on the left confront this fact, basically, that all TERMS of the politically issues facing the US right now have already been set by an extremist right wing? And the very way in which the problems are posed seems to determine at the outset what options are available. Such subtle maneuvers are, to my mind, the Bush Administration's greatest political success: we're not doing "domestic spying," we're "protecting the American people"; we're not punishing "prisoners of war," but "enemy combatants"; one procedure for interrogation we use is not "simulating drowning that deprives the subject of oxygen for extended periods of time and induces them to believe we're going to kill them" but "waterboarding" (doesn't the latter sound like a fun water-sport?); what we do is not "torture" but "information gathering"; finally, did you consider that "the world is better of without Saddam Hussein"? (This seemed obvious 2003, and may be less so now, but it simply does not follow, and it never did, that this fact, if it is a fact, in any way straightforwardly justified our invasion, let alone the myriad ways in which it was undertaken or mismanaged).

Someone explain to me this, why do they invite a person like Naomi Wolf in the first place? They do not let her speak and anyone watching television knows that. Besides the people who regularly watch Faux news and nothing else would have continued to remain ignorant, but now some of them might actually buy that book and read it. Why are they giving her or those like her any air time?

Someone explain to me this, why do they invite a person like Naomi Wolf in the first place? They do not let her speak and anyone watching television knows that. Besides the people who regularly watch Faux news and nothing else would have continued to remain ignorant, but now some of them might actually buy that book and read it. Why are they giving her or those like her any air time?

I think a better question would be Why does she go on the show when she knows that she's going to be talked over and interrupted constantly? I guess she just thinks that maybe she can reason with him, I think it would be great if she just got up and walked away. But maybe if she can inform a few people all won't be lost. "Have you read it?" "I read parts of it" "Maybe you should"

i really just want to beat the shit out of this oreilly wannabe.

he's got nothing but loud misinformed talking points.

The baffling part to me is the 'interviewing' style.

"What do you mean by secret prisons -- Gitmo?" "Prisons that don't operate under the laws. Gitmo is one, but there are many." "Let's talk about Gitmo; bad things have happened there, but only to 'enemy combatants'. Do you want to release our enemies back on to the battle field?" "Gitmo isn't what's important here, but--" "Twelve were released and went right back to killing! You want more of that to happen?" "No, but--"

And so it went on and on. When she says, 'We shouldn't torture people', he goes, 'So what, we should just release them back in to the wild?' Whoa! Where did you make that jump? Is this why the war in Iraq is going so badly? The people you're fighting can only be subdued by regular and consistent torture? Maybe that's why they've been waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay; it's the only way to keep the Terrorist Super Soldiers from just WALKING out of there.

FFS; I miss seeing John Stuart, since it's clear he actually reads the materials ahead of time and is capable of actually responding to what his interviewee is saying. I hope they end the strike soon.

Did anyone else catch how distraught she sounded from the get go? I can't help but imagine she was verbally battered before she got on camera, probably just before the segment. Its people like this interviewer who you want to smack around for a little bit until they act civilized.

...what do we do with people for whom know, on good evidence, that they wish to harm the US, and may have information about further intended harms?

On good evidence? That, of course, is where you have to start. That is where, if you do an interview with any asshole on Fox, you have to be prepared to jump in and fight to make your point. You say, "Did we have good evidence? If so, we could charge and convict them with the crime on which we have good evidence. You know, like we've agreed to do in treaties we help write up and signed - like a civilized country. And if we don't have good evidence, how do you justify holding people indefinitely?"

The reason we have habeas corpus and other legal protections is not to protect the guilty, but the innocent

That isn't the only reason we have these protections. We have them because we want a justice system that seeks the truth, and accurately identifies the true sources of threats to Americans. And we don't want a system that nurtures sadists who get their thrills by brutalizing people - innocent or guilty. Just as soon as you take away habeas corpus rights, you lock away people without the jailers being held accountable. A system like that always attracts sadists - people who can run amok because they think no one will ever know what they do to prisoners - because the prisoners have no attorneys and no trials. Of course, you can't say these things. You can't admit that among Americans are the same kind of bastards that were among the people of Chile under Pinochet, or among Spaniards under Franco, or among Indonesians under Suharto, or among Russians under Stalin.

How do we on the left confront this fact, basically, that all TERMS of the politically issues facing the US right now have already been set by an extremist right wing?

Scorn, disdain, disgust - that is what people on the left have to do every time they see the joke that American media has become. Glenn Greenwald has it right - read his columns describing the so-called "liberals" in the media. Read about Joe Klein, for example - just today. Lazy, sloppy, weak, and totally co-opted by right-wing politicians. Liberals are way too nice - the media should be taking a drubbing every day like the one Jon Stewart gave CNN when he was interviewed.

why do they invite a person like Naomi Wolf in the first place?...but now some of them might actually buy that book and read it.

There is very little chance that anyone who regularly watches Fox news will ever read a book by Naomi Wolf - certainly not this one! They watch to have their preconceived ideas validated. (We all do that, after all.) But on Fox? Well, let put it this way: no regular viewers will complain about Naomi Wolf being interviewed in the style that TheRealChristopher barely parodied above.

It seems the only reason she was brought on the show was as an example of the crazy left and it's wild-eyed hatred for Bush, freedom and America in our blind obedience to rational discourse and intellectual arguments.

"Well, you see Sir, looking at historical..."

"Why do you want American's to die!!!"

It's just more anti-intellectual programming to help keep folks devoted to god, government and fear. It's much harder to be a victim if you understand your threats but sadly it's much easier to stay afraid and just let Fox News blame others for your crappy lot in life.

The moron interviewing her never actually read her book otherwise he would have answered his own question. Klein makes it obvious that if these people are criminals then they should be tried in the legal system. In instances where Americans and Canadian citizens were rounded up they were tortured and kept in solitary confinement and never once were charges of terrorism brought up against them.

The people in Guantanamo clearly can't be guilty of anything because they haven't been charged with anything. These are primarily people rounded up by the Afghan resistance (and paid $5,000 a head) and just assumed by the U.S. to be terrorists. I doubt that they went and attacked Americans after being released but having been confined and tortured for months one can't really blame them.

The interview was something more like a combo between Jerry Springer and Pravda. She rarely even got one sentence off, but when she did it was just ignored so the host could blabber off about nothing.

Much of the sarcastic scorn voiced here has been hilarious and devastatingly accurate (esp. Greg and RealChristopher).

Tim: I took it for granted in my posting that torture is illegal, which I explicitly said, and immoral, which I at least strongly implied. I don't think we have a serious disagreement about the reasons for habeas corpus or other legal protections (which in context were a propos the topic of illegal detention, not treatment, although you are right to see the issues as interrelated). In that context, I meant that the part of the point the rule of law is to protect not the guilty, but the innocent from punishment, and, as you say, find out the truth of them matter. It goes without saying that torture is not an appropriate treatment even of the guilty

I'm sympathetic but somewhat uncomfortably with the "scorn, distain, and disgust" tack. Paul Krugman has been saying of late, basically: Look, it is pointless to argue when there are no common terms of debate, and 'bipartisan' now seems to mean making a big public pageant about getting together to give conservative extremists what they want. This is, I think, true. But what are we to do about this circumstance? Many of us, I think, have scorned, and disdained, and fumed with disgust about the Bush Administration for years now. What has that gotten us (on the left)? Well, some self-clarity about what we oppose and why, which is important. But in practical terms? I would say, from many of the conversations I've had, something like smug quietism ('We're right but we can't doing anything about it'). So: Are people like Naomi misguided even to try to give reasoned arguments on Foxnoise? More generally, would it be morally repugnant to adopt some of the rhetorical strategies of the right for our own ends?

I saw her interviewed on C-Span2's Book TV and she seemed a bit soft, fragile, ultrafeminine, and unfocused even in that comparatively civilized interview. Speaking and writing are different activities, and she seems to be better at one than the other. Considering the importance of her message, it's incredibly unfortunate.

The people at Fox News probably did their research and already knew her weaknesses. The "interviewer" (interrogator?) threw her off like that quite deliberately; it's a nasty, bullying game they play, because they really DO NOT want this kind of criticism of the Bush administration gaining traction.

I love it when Steven Colbert parodies that interview style; it helps bring it to consciousness in the viewers' minds.

Who is that interviewer, BTW? He's a nasty little creep. He could use a little notoriety and negative feedback. Somehow.

Interviewers like that would be laughed out of their job in other countries, you know. There would be months of references to the idiot who batters his victims to reinforce his political viewpoint. It would be a common segment on any satire program for years, where he angrily interviews, I dunno, puppies, while screaming angrily at them. There would be nasty columns about the end of civil discourse in the nation. There would be drawn out thematic discussion on the shape of political dialogue. It would be questioned whether standards and ethics in journalism in general really exists, and why it's actually a point having standards when conducting journalism. And now we're not even going into the entire "we has got to imprison tem terrists forevah cuss durn killing mercians"- thing.

But then again - I guess most countries don't have a huge party machinery, with boatloads of money, that's dependent on this sort of crap to function.

I know we can all agree Fox is a shit box "news" channel. That said, one can reduce their techniques to a science. Their tactics and style are clear.

If it were me I would try a passive aggressive posture. If these shitheads are going to blubber and yell over me, I'll just wait until there is silence. If there is no silence they come off looking like the bloviators they are.

As for missing an "opportunity" to communicate my message to a bunch of toothless, walker-bound, trailer trash, social retards in Fox Land- The best you could hope for short of a fist fight with these Fox pricks is looking like Naomi or worse.

See the circus act of O'Reilly and Riverra for example. Phil Donahue did a pretty masterful job sparring with Loofahead but it takes preparation and understanding and experience to face this crap off effectively.

Naomi's research and presentation in writing is very good her face-to-face, not so much. But make no mistake, I have tons of respect for her work and her bravery in this, the Former USA.

How is it that EVERYTIME they're "out of time" there's ALWAYS time for the Fox hack sitting in to frame the subject again in Fox terms.

As in: "Sorry, we're out of time but I have to say you're way out there and for you to compare Bush with Hitler is nuts, and you didn't answer my question, and you're endangering the troops, and yadda, yadda, yadda, and join us again tomorrow to an other edition of whack the liberal/progressiv/secular/decent person."

Are writers required by their publishers to appear on these shows? Why else would Wolfe agree to this garbage? The only thing maintaining the M$M's credibility is appearances by people like Wolfe & Dawkins, etc. Without them, it's a right wing echo chamber. NOTE TO LEFT: Stop appearing and/or watching this shit.

That's Fox News for ya.

If it were me I would try a passive aggressive posture. If these shitheads are going to blubber and yell over me, I'll just wait until there is silence. If there is no silence they come off looking like the bloviators they are.

Yes. That is the first step. Then, when the FOX hack finally stops making noise, you say, "Mr. Kasich, how are we going to do this? Are we going to continue with you interrupting and badgering - like your colleagues Mr. Hannity and Mr. O'Reilly - or are you going to act like a professional journalist for, say, five minutes? You have your soapbox, you can say what you want when I'm gone. But if you insist on interrupting me when I'm here - I'm gone now. What's it going to be?" Attack their unprofessional behavior. The message of the book is unlikely to be well communicated in a couple of minutes anyway - but the dressing down of the FOX fascist will make news and draw more attention to the book anyway. Most importantly, you haven't lapsed into "smug quietism" and haven't lowered yourself to Foxnoise's level either.

This is a typical Fox interview and clearly this guy has been taking lessons from O'Reilly. If he could have cut Wolfe's mic he would have. And I agree that she can not be held accountable for that interview. The Fox technique is reminiscent of the behavior of some members of my family: If I talk louder than you, interrupt you, don't let you get a word in edgewise, then I'm right. How sad that our media outlets are no better than a Thanksgiving dinner at our house!

If I was the publisher for the book, I would cut this interview with quotes from the book about the Media shutdown, cutting relevent points (invoking a real threat, propaganda, and invoking patriotism etc.) alongside this media jackass to further the point of the book. Perhaps Wolfe knew this is how the interview would play out, and she went on the show to further her point.

I saw her interviewed on C-Span2's Book TV and she seemed a bit soft, fragile, ultrafeminine, and unfocused even in that comparatively civilized interview. Speaking and writing are different activities, and she seems to be better at one than the other.

So, just because she didn't yell at the interviewer in either situation, she's "ultrafeminine"? The CSpan interview she held her ground, called the beliefs of the interviewer into question, and shut down every attack the intervierer had on the book and the points she made. I'm sorry, but she stood up in that interview superbly. Just because she didn't yell in the interviewer's face didn't mean she wasn't making her points.

As far as being interviewed on fox, the only way someone can make their point is if they are a known jackass, like C. Hitchens, who is known for being loud and obnoxious, so when he gets angry at the interviewer "Excuse me, but you must let me answer sir, I did not come on here for you to talk at me...", it's expected, and he yells back until he gets his point across. If someone like Naomi Wolfe goes on Fox and starts yelling back at this asshat, she only falls into the trap of looking like an extreme leftie like Al Franken and becomes a "lunatic fringe".

It's Lose/Lose.

I'm impressed Naomi kept her cool. I would have knocked the table over and kicked that guy in the balls. I can't believe people watch this kind of television. Who needs that level of frustration?

Magnolia Electric, I like your suggestion of the book promoters using this interview as an example of media abuse by Bush administration proponents. What the interviewer (what is his name, again?) was doing to her is a form of Straw Man Argument.

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

There should be a training center for liberal authors, where they can be equipped to handle the onslaught of rightwing dishonest interviewing techniques. If she had been prepared, or if she were better at thinking on her feet, she could have turned the interview into an examination of Fox tactics by pointing out exactly what he was doing.

Oh, and your assumption that, by "ultrafeminine," I meant "not yelling," is itself another form of Straw Man argument - or maybe it was just a misunderstanding. ;-)

Oh, and your assumption that, by "ultrafeminine," I meant "not yelling," is itself another form of Straw Man argument - or maybe it was just a misunderstanding. ;-)

Most likely :P Just got a bit defensive as I read your original statement as if you were equating "ultrafemanine" with "weak". Darn these internets and their ambiguity.

She went to FOX because she probably thought she could explain her thesis. And she tried. But as we can all hear, this was not an interview since the journalist just kept contradicting her and that is not a proper journalist work. He's a moron and from what I've seen of FOX, they're all morons. But she tried and I think we should all try to explain these thesis, especially to people who aren't sure, are hesitant, or even against them. Bravo Naomi.

What does FauxSpews get out of interviews like this? They just have these people on so they can talk over them. I bet if you time it she had maybe five seconds of uninterrupted speaking time - the rest of the time he talked over her. Why do people continue to go on shows like this? Don't they watch them and know that they aren't going to get to speak? Is it just for the money?

That why I dont listen to these Fox clips anymore. Whats the point? It just makes my blood boil and I always wonder why people bother going on for interviews.

They just act like liberal pussies meekly trying to get a word in while a ignorant loudmouth talks over/cuts mics and generally insults the guest.

If your going to go on at least dont be a punch bag.

Its great how she didn't diligantly button up after the host said "they were out of time." I wish she had said something like "seriously, this is much more important then some adverts..."

Here are links to some recent Naomi Wolf interviews that are much more informative:

Mark Molero

C-Span After Words

"Someone explain to me this, why do they invite a person like Naomi Wolf in the first place? They do not let her speak and anyone watching television knows that."

I think they intentionally talk over them in hopes they will lose their cool and look like a parody or lunatic as others have suggested.

And as to how to deal with them I agree with Frank Factor and Tim, and just do not participate in the interview at all untill they stop running their mouth for a minute and then make an issue out of the unprofessional interview style. Tell him straight out, "I will not participate in this interview at all if you don't let me finish my answer before shouting over me." Ask them, is this an elementary school yard or a professional news agency. Of course this might take practice as they might just keep yelling over this. I think they really need to just wait for silence, and continue to wait until they are allowed to speak. And if they do it calmly enough, actually walk off the show. But even that is risky and may look too "radical" if not done carefully.

Anyone who does an interview for Fox, coming from a point of view that isn't fascist, needs to study up. Check out the interview between O'Reilly and the son of a man who died in the twin towers attack. The interviewee, a former track athlete, prepared for his stint by timing how long O'Reilly would allow people to respond before cutting them off. The young man reduced his talking points to about 10 seconds each, if I remember correctly.

It worked. He got his points in. O'Reilly did his usual bombast bit, finally telling the young man to get off the set and so on, but the point was well-made. The son of the man who died was against the war and got his points across without being an ass, but by being firm and ultra-concise.

Had Wolf gone through the same paces, i think she would have spoken to a handle full of viewers whose brain hasn't completely shut down. Get your digs in before the interviewer has time to say, "Well I don't need to read your book" "You're a crazed left-winger" "You don't know what you're talking about" - louder with each recitation.

Painful viewing, these Fox clips. Makes me so glad I don't have cable. shit; my picture tube on my TV died anyway. It's all NPR and print media...and blogs.

Are people really asking why people watch Fox News? Isn't it pretty obvious?

They are really good at what they do. As much as I hate Bill O. and the others, he is a genius at what he is trying to accomplish.

Think if there was a liberal equivalent to Fox News on TV. There would be tons of clips from it on this blog and a similar but reversed interview would have you people cheering on the interviewer with zeal.

I used to enjoy listening to Air America radio, but they often employed the same tactics as Fox.

why reasoned, intelligent people continue to appear on fox news is beyond me

she should take a cue from christopher hitchens: "excuse me sir ... excuse me sir (repeat as necessary) ... did you invite me on for my opinion or so you could give me yours?"

the "interviewer" spoke probably 4x as much as the interviewee

seems she unfortunately omitted to mention that one of the fundamental signs of our decay into fascism: a sycophantic propaganda network masquerading as "news"

Think if there was a liberal equivalent to Fox News on TV. There would be tons of clips from it on this blog and a similar but reversed interview would have you people cheering on the interviewer with zeal.

You mean like the daily show. I mean, we love the confrontational interviews Jon does, but even Jon talked about this interview with McCain later that week with Bill Moyers and discussed about how he despised the fact that they talked over each other at the end of the interview.

If Fox news serves conservatives, conservatives must only want to be coddled, reassured their world view is correct, and all 'enemies' to be silenced. This isn't exaggeration. If Fox news really speaks to republicans, they are more frightening than portrayed.

The "liberal" interviewers that are held up by the left are those who leave space for those being interviewed to answer questions, but still ask tough questions, (olbermann, stewart, moyers). Republicans only want to prove they are right, and then shout over anyone they disagree with, if fox news is such a paragon of the republican party.

You watch these interviews where the host does nothing but make sure their point goes across and you start to ask the question "Why do people even bother going on the show"?

If you ever logged onto Sam Harris's web site he has a couple interviews at this link here. www.samharris.org/site/media_video/

These are great additions to his opinions because they glorify the narcissistic ignorance he is dealing with, and bolster peoples respect for him. If O'Riely is good at anything it's making people look a hell of a lot better then himself.

FOX News blows. I really don't get why anyone would even think about appearing on it. The target audience has no ability to grasp meaningful dialog, debate or reason (defeats the purpose of watching FOX News in the first place) and its presenters are usually uneducated, misinformed, right wing bullies that welcome their guests like the Grinch welcomes x-mas.

Yea, the interviewer is boisterous and interrupts her, but that’s after she makes questionable statements. Any interviewer shouldn’t just let someone go on and on without checking them on their remarks. They can’t just let people continue spewing controversial opinions as fast as they can. It is suppose to be an exchange, so he is forced to interrupt her, and he questions her facts. I don’t care what political ideal you have, this should makes sense to anyone. Regardless... it doesn’t matter; politically minded people on both sides are so set in their thinking, they have no idea how extremely biased they are. Of course everyone in here can’t stand the interviewer… you disagree with him. Of course you will leave condemning remarks about me… I gave an opposing viewpoint. Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with the liberal stance these days, I trust that somewhere among all the differences of opinion, the best for the US will continue to evolve and improve.