Joyner vs. Greenwald on al Jazeera
OTB's James Joyner and Salon's Glenn Greenwald discuss WikiLeaks and its implications for journalism on Al Jazeera's "Inside Story."
I’ll be on al Jazeera’s “Inside Story” this morning talking about the WikiLeaks mess. Glenn Greenwald will be among the other guests. It looks like the show airs domestically at 23:30 Eastern. It’ll also be on YouTube in the next day or so and I’ll post it in this space (bumped to top) when it’s available.
UPDATE (8/24): Here’s the video:
The experience was a bit surreal. In addition to sitting by myself what was essentially a closet (the image behind me on the screen is virtual; there’s no actual view of the Capitol) and trying to stare into a camera while avoiding being blinded by the lights, the a three-against-one format is less than ideal.
James Joyner is on al Jazeera.
al-Jazeera broadcasts tapes from bin Laden.
Bin Laden runs al-Qaeda.
Therefore, James Joyner supports al-Qaeda.
Am I right?
You do not look a happy camper Jim.
Yeah, the combination of being in “voice from nowhere” mode and frustration at leading questions, forcing me to not only defend my position when the host and the two other guests are arguing the opposite but also to challenge bogus premises.
To be completely honest none of the three panelists came off particularly well. Greenwald looked as if he might be suffering the effects of malaria, James looked constipated, and I couldn’t shake the feeling that the woman was breakfasting on one of those Roman roof-top hotels and wondering where her cafe latte was.
It’s always weird watching yourself on video. Every time I have to do it I end up wondering who the hell that fat, old bald dude is.
Hmm. Constipated. Probably one of the nicer things you’ve been called in a long time. 😉
Indeed!
I find in studio programs, where panelists can look directly at the host, by far the most conducive to comfortable dialog. At the opposite end of the spectrum is sitting alone staring at a camera. The best middle ground for remotes is a live feed so that you can at least look at the host and draw some visual cues — although looking at yourself talking can be weird, too.
I don’t think it was terrible, at least nobody was screaming or repeatedly interrupting. I think James answered well and seemed to be the most reasonable; he just looked a bit grumpy (possibly due to the blinding lights, or uh, like Mr. Reynolds said).
Sorry Jim but I had to have a chuckle. Both you and Greenwald both use much younger pics of yourselves as avatars. Something you share at least. Whether you agree with him most of the time or not Greenwald is a very smart guy. Some of the pieces he’s written about the supreme court are little masterpieces.
Heh. His is a cartoon. Mine’s maybe four years old now. But marriage and a kid has aged me quick!
Mostly, though, I think it’s just a matter of lighting. The avatar image is cropped from a photo at a White House tour and under shadow, vice the other being under TV lights.
***or repeatedly interrupting.*** that interview dude interrupted James ever time he tried to make a point, except for his last point witch was nice:)
But marriage and a kid has aged me quick!
True. So terribly true. I used to look like their father. Now I look like their grandfather.
>>I used to look like their father. Now I look like their grandfather.>>>
Hell, I AM their grandfather…
Finally got to see. I thought you did a great job James in a hostile environment. I had to laugh at about the third time you were interrupted so that the interviewer could launch a softball to Greenwald, whom I’m sure could have handled some tougher questions than that.
I’ve not watched a lot of al Jazeera, but from what I’ve seen, I’ve been surprised at the depth of coverage. We certainly need some sane people to communicate with the Muslim world.
Thanks. I haven’t done enough TV to be used to it and still find the camera thing weird unless there’s a host to look at.
I’ve done al Jazeera English a couple times and even the Arabic thing once (in English, taking on faith that they’d overdub it fairly). Their reputation is first rate, even among people you’d think would be hostile. A good friend who’s a senior CIA analyst says that the folks at Langley have the channel on constantly, precisely because they’re so thorough and comprehensive. They’re not exactly unbiased and not necessarily even “fair” in the way they’d be if I were running a network, but they’re honestly interested in airing a variety of intelligent views.