I don't know what that was about, but I went back into his tweets and put this together:The media will no doubt report that I 'stormed out'
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) December 16, 2021
I didn't
Nor did I lose my temper
But I was depressed that this kind of presenter-ego crap is so prevalent now
I just did an interview with BBC World Asia. It was to talk about the shows I'm doing in Singapore and Bangkok Instead, the interviewer, whose name was, I think, Karishma, started by asking me questions about Cancel Culture. I replied courteously and in full.
I explained that if parents were over protective, it did not prepare children well when they entered the real and often not-very-nice world.
She then asked a disjointed question, clearly trying to portray me as old-fashioned, uncaring and basically harmful I pointed out that her question was a poor one, since it contained so many very different points I answered one. Many Cognitive Behavioural Therapists who are successful in helping young people with Anxiety and Depression, feel that Woke principles are almost the opposite of theirs... She totally ignored this.
At this point pointed out that I had been told than the interview was to be about my shows in Singapore and Bangkok, and I asked if we could now talk about that. She then asked why I was doing shows in Asia when the pandemic was causing such problems...... apparently blaming me for making the situation worse!
I explained that the omicron variant had surfaced only three weeks ago, and that tours are arranged rather more than three weeks ahead. She then asked me about Dave Chapelle. So I removed my headphones, saying......that this was not the interview I had agreed to.
So I am formally complaining to the BBC about the deception, dishonesty and tone of this interview Karishma had no interest in a discussion with me. She wanted only the role of prosecutor. The BBC needs to train her again.
He sounds a tad entitled! But maybe those were the terms of the interview: Let me promote my shows and only ask softballs questions. No probing. No challenging.
I wonder what Many Cognitive Behavioural Therapists would say about him. This exchange left him depressed, he says, but does he realize that he just talked about "helping young people with Anxiety and Depression" and citing therapists with principles that are "almost the opposite of theirs" of "Woke principles"?
I assume that means that young people shouldn't be coddled and overprotected but ought to learn to take on challenges. If you believe that, why would you also think that you should be coddled and overprotected? You chose to do publicity, and you — unlike a kid in school — had the power to get up and leave, which you did.
I can see doing what you can to counter the anticipated smear that you're a hothead who stormed out, but in fixing one problem, you've created another.
पोस्ट्स
१०६ टिप्पण्या:
Good interviewers know that the interview is about the interviewee, not the interviewor.
I assume that means that young people shouldn't be coddled and overprotected but ought to learn to take on challenges.
True, because their challenges are ahead of them or are present here and now. An old man whose challenges are behind him can act up, especially an old Englishman. Cantankerousness is considered appealingly eccentric. Old eccentrics are cherished and licensed to tell the truth every now and then.
If the BBC told him the interview was about X, then turn around and make it about Y, then they deceived him, probably because they knew if they told him it would be about Y, he would not agree to come on. The press is not a court or Congress. No one is required to answer their questions or participate in an interview designed to boost the media's rating while damaging theirs. Honestly, more people should "storm out" when the press pulls nonsense like this.
Is John Cleese an expert on cognitive behavioral therapy? On pandemics? What, exactly, did BBC think Mr. Cleese had to offer on these subjects?
It's like interviewing a baseball player and asking him about modern monetary theory.
I don't think he sounds entitled. On the contrary, the BBC isn't entitled to farm him for clickbait after lying to him about the nature of an appointment.
I think you're misinterpreting this. Cleese was managing his public persona, and in this venue, it meant he was talking about his next upcoming work. I think these interviews are structured in advance, with the material under discussion agreed and sometimes even the specific questions. Personae like Cleese will go on the road to drum up advance interest in their work, that's the purpose. Deviating from this script is usually a sign of 'gotcha' journalism - a good example of this is the ambush interview of Jordan Peterson by Channel 4's Cathy Newman a few years ago. Cleese is in his 80's now, and I think he's justifiably frustrated with what he sees as puerile nonsense that has gone on far too long because of a lack of push-back, usually out of fear. That's an affront to someone who has lived off his creativity and wits and his sense of satire so successfully. Good for him, walking out. It would have been helpful if you had provided a link so we could hear for ourselves, but in my opinion Cancel Culture will only die by confrontations like this one. The interviewer is rightly left with dead air time and embarrassment to answer for. Turnabout is Fair Play.
Hmmm.... I seem to remember you were full of admiration for Robert Downey Jr. when he pulled a highly similar stunt a few years ago.
The subject of the interview was agreed to, in advance. If he had agreed to a free form interview then you would have a point. But he is not obligated to participate in what was basically a ambush struggle session.
It sounds like the focus of the interview was for his shows. He entertained a side-bar from that, but when the main focus of the interview started going down that path, he wasn't interested.
As a 'famous person' there's often no real expectation of privacy while out and about, and interviews may solicit questions which you'd rather not answer, that doesn't mean they are obligated to bow down to every potential abuse (sic).
"I just did an interview with BBC World Asia. It was to talk about the shows I'm doing in Singapore and Bangkok."
If you're invited for an interview to talk about A and B and it turns out the interviewer is only interested in discussing X, Y and Z, I'd say the interviewer is the one who's acting entitled. I don't blame him for leaving.
Agree with Ann 99% of the time, but not on this. Life is too short wasting your time dealing with woke assholes. JC sent a message to anyone who wants to interview him in the future not to waste his time with this type of crap.
I believe when a reporter asked for an interview “about X” then the subject of X should at least be touched upon during the time allotted. Time is finite. Bait and switch is an interview tactic people use in what Althouse’s profession calls a hostile witness. But lawyers in court first ask permission to treat witnesses so rudely. A conversation is a casual contract and she violated it. He handled it with grace and aplomb in my opinion.
Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson
Why should an entertainer be “probed and challenged?” Who gives a shit what John Cleese thinks about coddling or covid? He’s a comedian FFS. He’s not Jordan Peterson. Probe and challenge Boris Johnson about his lockdown policies, and let us laugh at or tune out John Cleese.
Was Cleese paid for the time he was asked to contribute to the BBC to help draw an audience? Or was there an agreed-upon quid pro quo that specificied that he'd be given time to plug his upcoming shows?
Expecting an agreed-upon deal to be honored is not at all related to a sense of entitlement. Karishma's readiness to execute a bait-and-switch gambit, OTOH, reeks of "journalistic" privilege.
Wow, talk about a tempest in a teacup. Guess Cleese walked into the "Argument room" when he wanted the "Plug my show" room.
Why doesn't Cleese just retire? He's in his 70s and richer than God. He's a libtard, so he doesn't like being cast as an "old fuddy duddy" aka "Conservative", so he flounced off. The whole controversy is interesting to read about, who would want to watch Cleese do any BBC intereviews?
This is actually an age old problem. The Star wants to plug his show. The Interviewer wants to provide the audience something interesting. Brando used to have this problem all the time. Of Course, Brando was more clever than most libtard actors. Instead of saying, "I just want to plug my movie" Brando would say "I want to talk about Indians and how they've been mistreated". It achieved the same affect, but gave him the libtard high ground. "Oh look, at nice Mr.Brando he wants to discuss "Lo, the poor Indian" but Dick Cavett keeps badgering him about acting"
“She then asked me about Dave Chapelle…”
He needed a trigger warning for that question?
Hmmm. Did he get up and leave?
It seems that he was (deceived and) prepared for one topic/outcome; but, was presented w/another scenario altogether that he was unprepared for. Or not interested in. It’s the journalist that should have to toe the line, not Cleese. Idk what was said about his resistance to play the multiple choice game, but it’s those kinds of manipulation that he seems depressed by- not necessarily the personal negative treatment he may have gotten.
He’s doing damage control? No, maybe… or-
He’s putting facts out. Media manipulate. He was un-faking news.
What?? Shutting down a forum because you don't like what others are saying or asking? Because you are being challenged?
Who would do such a thing???
I was double-crossed in an inconsequential TV interview twenty years ago, where a local TV reporter reneged on an agreement on what I'd comment about in a controversial court case. Once the camera was on, she did what she wanted. I saw the gleam in her eye when she asked me the question we had agreed not to discuss. I've never consented to an interview since, and I've always remembered it when viewing other interviews.
It is frustrating and depressing to be treated in bad faith like this by someone with such power. Cleese isn't entitled, except in the sense that he's entitled to have his agreements honored, as we all are.
He sounds a tad entitled!
I'll say! He's obviously under the impression that he's allowed to have an opinion!
I've always found Cleese to be very cerebral, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to know he knows a lot about cognitive behavior.
I will say that when you're a Star, and Cleese is, you get to negotiate what you'll talk about -- rather like a Democratic Politician and the Mainstream Media. Kudos to him to recognizing the deviation from the script and the need to abandon things. Celebrity reporters need to learn boundaries, and to learn how to read the room.
The BBC did a bait and switch. His mistake was in answering the first question off topic of his upcoming tour. A simple string of "no comment" would have been a better response in this situation. Or maybe just a simple and impolite "sod off".
Also, what Jersey Fled said: A good journalists knows that the story should not be about them. Karishma as a lot to learn.
As someone who has been ambushed by deceptive media requests in my professional life, I think Mr. Cleese was awfully polite in pushing back. When this happened to me, however, I was indignant, not depressed. Reporters seem to think they are entitled to manage the news rather than report it. I think otherwise.
>>It's like interviewing a baseball player and asking him about modern monetary theory.
It's like interviewing Marge Schott and asking her about Hitler's economic policies.
Journalism school
If you were a tree....
"Idiocracy" wasnt fiction.
Here's the actual 6:35 minute interview...
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59681167
To me, Cleese indulged her on the "cancel culture" controversies she wished to talk about, but she kept coming back to it.
She seemed to be reading prepared questions that sapped the interview of any genuine interaction or flow, a line of questioning more intended to trap him that would gin-up more controversy.
"But maybe those were the terms of the interview: [...] only ask softballs questions. No probing. No challenging."
Only US democrat pols get those terms.
Didn’t something like this happen to you on Bloggingheads once?
The Empire started going downhill about the time they started replacing Britons with multi-culti woke immigrants. The same could probably said about American journalism.
rcocean said...
"The Interviewer wants to provide the audience something interesting."
By asking an entertainer about scientific or medical issues?
A friend once evicted a family of deadbeats (they never paid rent beyond the first month) in December. The local TV station asked for an interview, obviously to show what a cruel landlord my friend was. He agreed to the interview, then made sure every second or third word was SH** or FU**. Remarkable, the interview was not aired.
Call this woke bullshit exactly what it is. Sincerely suggest that they stick it right up their narrow bottoms.
“Entitled”, no, it sounds like he was ambushed by a soft bully of a woman who was trying to corner him. Funny, how this happens mostly to people who disagree with woke ideas. I’m glad that he got up and left. Or did he stamp his feet, throw the headset down and tell the interviewer to fuck off? That would be storming out…IMHO.
Interviews are conducted, presumably, for the benefit of the people who will view the interview (the audience). Cleese probably thinks (and I would agree with him), that the audience wants to hear about his new show, not get browbeat by the interviewer's preoccupation with wokness.
Cleese what right about another thing too - it's depressing.
The interviewer sounds like she went in too hot. Experienced journalists can normally get these questions answered if they first give the subject what he wants, which is almost always promotion of his product. Hadley Freeman of The Guardian is very good at this. You can't just go in with the hardball first up. You need honey with your vinegar.
My sweet lord!
I always took it for granted that these kinds of interviews were the result of serious treaty negotiations between entertainer and interviewer, with the understanding that the entertainer is there to promote their latest show. They're not there to debate social issues. They're not there to talk about the iconic thing they did twenty years ago. They're not there to pander to some other agenda. If that's what was agreed to, then the interviewer absolutely owes to the entertainer to stick to the agreed topic(s).
Cleese a "libtard"? Have you seen his acerbic comments re "wokeness", the "death of comedy", cancel culture, and free speech itself? He was also a supporter of Brexit.
He may be an old-fashioned liberal, but he's not a "libtard".
@ Ms. Althouse: I'd say Cleese was a "tad entitled" to have the previously-agreed-to terms and topics of his interview adhered to. You know, a "mutual consideration" situation. As in contract law.
i am glad to see Althouse readers disagreeing with her today. I don't need to say a thing.
He's obviously under the impression that he's allowed to have an opinion!
He's also under the impression that if he doesn't want to provide opinions on everything and rather on the agreed subject; then he's free to remain silent and go about his day.
I guess Miranda is an entitlement now.
"He sounds a tad entitled!"
Let's teach him he's not entitled to end an interview. The BBC has the right to take his time for their own use and without compensation. /s
Why do leftists have such bad opinions.
If the goal is publicity, this seems to be more successful than either the interview as intended or the interview as given. The difference is that the interviewer was trying to secure control and Cleese maneuvered around that to get what he was wanting out of the process.
I'm reminded of the old Rosie O'Donnell and Tom Selleck dust up many years ago, where he had a similar shift of expectations but didn't handle it smoothly, and Rosie kept control of the situation and aftermath.
"I've always found Cleese to be very cerebral, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to know he knows a lot about cognitive behavior. I will say that when you're a Star, and Cleese is, you get to negotiate what you'll talk about ..."
My point is that he knocked the protectiveness toward young people while insisting on protection for himself. He could have just walked out and not made a thing about it. Going public and attacking the journalist makes him fair game.
Also, he has made a show over the years of being an unusually intelligent guy. He aims that at other people. He's no underdog.
I follow him on Twitter and, when I first saw his tweet, I was inclined to side with him. When I read all the background in the course of writing this post, I felt my opinion turn.
I call them as I see them.
(Eaglebeak)
Althouse calls 'em as she sees 'em--and so does Cleese. In this case I see 'em more the way Cleese does.
He sounds a tad entitled!
Given his body of work over the years, he is entitled. Or he ought to be.
Mark wins the thread.
I believe I've seen that journobitch when I used to have the BBC.
Cleese is entirely in the right here. It only surprises me that he seemed surprised.
My job involved dealing with a lot of journalists and reporters, and I learned that 90% of them have their stories written and cast before they start writing, and ambushing Subjects with stupid questions is their ideal.
If I could save Cleese or the whole staff of the Beeb from a typhoon, I'd choose Cleese.
Ann:
In a recent post, you said you focus on individual sentences when you read. This was a very helpful comment in understanding your posts. Unlike many other bloggers, you aren't automatically looking for a big picture or statement. The many readers and commenters who automatically look for the big picture are, therefore, often missing the point. I know I have done this. Focusing narrowly, therefore, helps me to see what it is you are actually getting at.
The long blue tickets in the Gatsby quote was the ah-ha moment for me.
"Going public and attacking the journalist makes him fair game."
I think that's exactly where he is comfortable. Bad comedians don't know how to handle negative responses from audiences or those who jeer or try to turn attention. Good comedians bounce off of that and thrive.
Cleese, I think, invites people to jeer and in making himself the target gets himself more attention for his skills and continued work.
Maybe he'll fail at that, but I think he invites it and thinks it works to his favor.
"Cleese isn't entitled, except in the sense that he's entitled to have his agreements honored, as we all are."
This is so key. Why should bad faith agreements or bad faith interviewers be honored while responding to this as bad faith be seen as a negative. Maybe more people not putting up with this kind of double crossing would get folks to not do it as much.
Another thought. Cleese has been a man of the left for so long that he probably has never — or hardly ever! — faced a hostile, “gotcha,” interview before. If he were a man of the right, he’d have gotten used to it long ago and had his responses ready.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-59679906
If you wish you could watch the interview before passing judgment.
She seemed hostile from the beginning. He is a bit cranky, but older people get that way sometimes.
He’s just following the Brandon, er, Biden precedent.
Professora : have you ever been interviewed? did even the ''Badger campus paper '' bother to ask you about anything?
"why would you also think that you should be coddled and overprotected?"
Assuming a fact not in evidence. Did he think that? Or did he think that he should be treated professionally, in keeping with a previous agreement--IF that's what it was?
Cleese has already taken risks by challenging PC wokeness. His record refutes Althouse's smear.
'He sounds a tad entitled!'
He should have told her to fuck off.
He has earned a modicum of respect over the years.
He's a comedian and not a politician.
The BBC is vehemently left-wing and he should know that.
99% of these interviews are fluff. The 'star' does it to promote their work and everyone usually knows that.
Blind-siding someone with politics is a bullshit move.
The BBC interviewer saw an elderly white male celebrity and did what was expected of a BBC interviewer when so confronted - attacked Cleese. Cleese should be aware of how that works by now, as he made fun of exactly that sort of thing in 1968 on the MPFC show, with skits about BBC interviews that never went as expected. Maybe 50+ years is too long ago for him to recall that what America is doing now, Cleese was parodying in England then.
Althouse puts Cleese in an untenable position, as did the BBC interviewer. Cleese didn't ask to be coddled and over-protected. He asked to be interviewed about the subject agreed upon when the interview was scheduled. That didn't happen.
His choices during the interview were to lose or lose. Either he could participate unwillingly in a self-criticism session worthy of the CCP Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution, with his conviction assured as the questions were asked and only his punishemnt to be decided upon, or he could be found wanting in politeness for leaving the interview without expressing gratitude to the BBC for the invitation, after an attempted BBC mugging.
The only sensible move is not to play the BBC game.
Cleese might also have gone into character and stated that the interviewer had not correctly devined Cleese's attitude towards the audiences in Singapore and Bangkok, reprising the punchline from the famous Architect Sketch . But that would be acting, which he wasn't being paid to do by the BBC.
Just a FYI, he can be depressed without having depression, a debilitating condition that responds to treatment.
'Also, he has made a show over the years of being an unusually intelligent guy.'
He graduated from Cambridge when that used to mean something.
Not so much anymore...
“I call them as I see them.”
Shake your head, ref. Your eyes are stuck.
—- Uncle Charlie, at every Anaheim High School football game in the mid ‘60s
I call'em as I myopically see'em.
I recall a blogger who announced she would zap comments not about her designated topic.
If he was told that the interview was about X and the interviewer started asking about Y then the BBC deceived him. They ambushed him.
Cleese is *working*. He is spending his time there to promote the shows. So he was deceived. Is it entitled to resent being deceived?
I gather the interview with Cleese has not been shown on BBC yet.
so BBC has been forewarned about how to spin it.
I really enjoy the free ranging topics and reading Althouse's thoughts that she chooses to share. That she provides this forum and even occasionally wades back into provide more support for her statements, as done above, is commendable. A lot of you guys make me laugh, on purpose I believe. Mark, your comment was witty like a scene from The Office. This is one of those quite enjoyable ventures into the wide open thoughts of our little corner of the Net. Also, thank God others formulated the X vs Y analogy better than I because upon rereading my first post, it was tad incoherent. It was the lawyer thing. Maybe I should just steer clear of using law as an analogy on a (former) LawProf's blog.
JC recently 'canceled' himself over a Hitler flap. It seems to me he is being consistent in his approach to the woke non-sense that is out there. And as far as helping kids face anxiety in a cruel and hostile world, he faced the questioner, responded courteously, and when pressed and not given the respect and consideration required, left a toxic environment. He then reported the poor behavior exhibited by the reporter to her employer. Sounds about right to me.
So I am formally complaining to the BBC about the deception, dishonesty and tone of this interview Karishma had no interest in a discussion with me. She wanted only the role of prosecutor. The BBC needs to train her again.
She acted exactly how they trained her.
He sounds a tad entitled! But maybe those were the terms of the interview: Let me promote my shows and only ask softballs questions. No probing. No challenging.
You're more intelligent than that.
She could have asked him questions about the proposed subject of the interview: his shows. She didn't. She could have asked him probing and intelligent questions, she did.
She is the entitled brat here. She wanted the gift of John Cleese's time, and so she lied to him to get it. While that's common behavior, it's not acceptable behavior.
She's not entitled to Cleese's time. Cleese isn't entitled to come on teh show. They're supposed to engage in honest negotiation: "Please come on our show to talk about X".
The interviewer violated that agreement. If it was a bad agreement, she shouldn't' have made it in the first place. "Renegotiating" it all by herself is not legitimate behavior
Mark said...
What?? Shutting down a forum because you don't like what others are saying or asking? Because you are being challenged?
Who would do such a thing???
Zing!
“She then asked me about Dave Chapelle…”
Left Bank of the Charles: "He needed a trigger warning for that question?"
I suspect you must take the point being made, create a multi-level matrix for Incorrect Moronic Hot Takes on that point, prioritize those Incorrect Moronic Hot Takes and then begin to offer them up one at a time at Althouse blog.
The only other possibility is one for which it would be far too rude to explicitly lay out.
Ann Althouse said...
My point is that he knocked the protectiveness toward young people while insisting on protection for himself.
Wrong.
Insisting that people adhere to their negotiated agreements is not "entitlement", it's the fundamental basis of civilization and the rule of law.
You're a former law professor, and you have a problem with the core of law? WTF?
He could have just walked out and not made a thing about it. Going public and attacking the journalist makes him fair game.
Wrong again. She violated her negotiated agreement and attacked him. That made her "fair game".
Self defense is a moral right. Attacking those who initiate attacks against others (and she was the initiator here) is both a moral right and a moral duty.
Nothing required here to make a deal with Cleese. But once she made it, all human decency requires that she keep it.
She didn't
I love everything Python, and I was ready to take Cleese's side until this line: "The BBC needs to train her again." Yikes.
I looked for the pre-recorded interview and watched all 6+ minutes. The interviewer is a very experienced, highly respected BBC journalist for SE Asia. Perhaps he was highly jet-lagged. She could have been smoother about it, starting with the stand-up tour, which sounds like it will be topical (but he also revealed that he hasn't started writing it yet!), and getting into the substance of cancel culture/wokeism as feeding from that. After all, he has been in the news most recently for the kerfuffle with the BBC over an old Fawlty Towers episode, "the Germans", and with Cambridge U over old Hilter/Hitler impressions on MPFC. And he sounded particularly like a sexist old-fogey when he reminded her that tours like this are booked on a different timeline than the course of covid variants. As if that answers the question whether the tour should be re-scheduled!
He's now depressed (in the colloquial sense, perhaps?). But I bet the interview is generating more publicity for the tour than anyone expected. But I have to say, after watching the interview, I would not pay money to sit in a big room to listen to 82-year old John Cleese perform alone for any length. (And I should be careful with my "buts". Her starting a sentence that way is what set him off early on.) 10 years ago he called his standup tours his alimony tours. Surely he's raised enough money by now.
No one I know has ever handled a hostile press better than Bob Dylan in 1965. His non-sequitur responses to inane questions in the press conference sections of No Direction Home are priceless. I also once saw Whit Stillman play with a Paris Match reporter like a kitten with a ball of yarn. I wish Cleese would have a go at it. It could be fun. A couple of samples:
---
Journalist: What is your real message?
Bob Dylan: My real message? Keep a good head and always carry a light bulb.
---
Journalist: You sound angry in your songs. I mean, are you protesting against certain things that you're angry about?
Bob Dylan: I'm not angry. I'm delightful.
She could have asked him questions about the proposed subject of the interview: his shows. She didn't. She could have asked him probing and intelligent questions, she did.
That would be "she did not" :-(
"He could have just walked out and not made a thing about it. Going public and attacking the journalist makes him fair game."
They have the power of the edit. They can add or delete things in such a way that Cleese comes off looking like a babling idiot. Cleese is aware of this power, so he is getting out in front of things and letting people know what his side of the story is.
John Cleese is entitled. To more respect. And to keep on the topic agreed to when this interview was arranged. He's a giant of comedy, improv, satire, and ensemble comedy writing. She's a gnat on a cow's behind, trying to become a bit larger on the carcass of a comedy giant whom she knows nothing about other than what her bigoted eyes tell her: He's an Old White Man.
And, he's been around. Seen more than both her and her entire staff, I'm sure. Read more. Seen more. Done more. He's done with the bullshit and I think he's made that abundantly clear previously. They want to persist on their global purge, they can have at it. But not with John Cleese.
And not with me, either.
He fucked up engaging with the BBC at all. Own goal…
Attention old people: if you continue to expect mainstream media to be what you remember it to be in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s you will continue to be depressed and those in the know will see you as the old person you are with little to contribute.
Change or step off…
Big Mike said...
Another thought. Cleese has been a man of the left for so long that he probably has never — or hardly ever! — faced a hostile, “gotcha,” interview before. If he were a man of the right, he’d have gotten used to it long ago and had his responses ready.
Cleese is no stranger to controversy.
Greg the Class Snowflake: Rule of Law, initiate attacks, moral rights and duties, human decency, blah blah blah blah blah.
It's a fucking celebrity interview where both parties are finagling clicks for dollars where according to Greg, the fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance.
Who castrated you, Greg? Check your T-zone sister or else they will force you to become a trans woman since you are already halfway there.
From Virgil almost at the top
. Life is too short wasting your time dealing with woke assholes.
Everyone knows the interview was mutually beneficial.
The BBC got a big name to tease, getting listeners attention, enlarging the audience for the BBC. Cleese got an opportunity to promote his work. This is a pure business transaction. Cleese understands, the interviewer not so much. The interviewer will be hard pressed attracting big names from here on out.The "market" will sort this out instantly.
It's like interviewing a baseball player and asking him about modern monetary theory.
Unless that player is Ross Stripling, possibly.
Robert Downey Jr was sandbagged the same way. Interview was supposed to be about a movie and it turned into something else.
Link to video
people said stuff like....
I recall a blogger who announced she would zap comments not about her designated topic
in the immortal words, of SE Hinton.... That Was THEN, This Is NOW
Key and Peale did that.
What would have been wrong with him saying, "That's beyond the scope of this discussion. What would you like to know about my next show?"
Howard said...
It's a fucking celebrity interview where both parties are finagling clicks for dollars where according to Greg, the fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance.
****************
Howard doesn't give a flying Leap whether Cleese suffered monetary damages by not being able to plug his performances, as previously AGREED by the parties.
Cleese is rich, you see, so he doesn't need the money.
Howard OTOH would like someone to give *him* money, if only to keep himself in Slim Jims and Boone Farm Aple Wine.
You really should better explain what problem you think he has caused himself (besides being tricked into wasting his time in the first place).
Howard said...
Who castrated you, Greg?
Howard once again shows that Lefties always project. And since he's a ball-less wonder, everyone else must be one, too.
If the event is as you say, then there's no grounds for objecting to Cleese's response. If the event is as I say, there's no grounds for objecting to Cleese's response.
But, Howie, you do object. Because it makes your low T heart cringe when your designated victims fight back
Professora said? ...
'Also, he has made a show over the years of being an unusually intelligent guy.'
Cleese and Palin discuss/debate Life of Brian - with a Bishop and Malcolm Muggeridge more than 40 years ago!
“Is John Cleese an expert on cognitive behavioral therapy? On pandemics? What, exactly, did BBC think Mr. Cleese had to offer on these subjects?”
Keep in mind that Cleese was a very bright attorney who got into comedy through boredom with the law. With his background, I expect that he viewed it similarly to some of the attorneys here - breach of contract. In the end, she is the one who screwed up. They need him more than he needs them. Even as an American, I will watch him talk whenever I can. He brings eyeballs, that the struggling BBC desperately needs, no doubt more than he needs the money from the project of his he was flogging. Yes, it was agreed to as a mutually beneficial contract. But she breached the contract, and it wasn’t worth his time or aggravation to let her get away with it, so he didn’t. She was the breaching party, and he elected his remedy.
My point is that he knocked the protectiveness toward young people while insisting on protection for himself.
There's a big difference, though, between banning someone from speaking and that person choosing not to speak. "The protectiveness" toward young people you speak of has consequences for the person being prohibited from speaking to the young person. But people making a choice- choosing not to go to a particular lecture, or choosing not to make a particular lecture, or choosing not to participate in an interview- is different than not being allowed to speak at a place.
He can walk off, he can complain, and BBC can do something or nothing about it. How do you change the course of interviews you don't like if you just let them happen?
I should say, if you just let them happen to you?
Althouse attacks the victim. Sounds like a right-wing thing to me.
Also, what makes you or anyone think you need a degree to understand "cognitive behavior"? Good parents engage in CBT all the time, without being paid for it.
Karishma—when autonomous cars collide.
You know, some one of these days an aggrieved person is going to beat the snot out of an ambush interviewer and the media will be stunned to discover that everyone is congratulating the person who did the beating and only lefty extremists and other media types feel sorry for the hospitalized interviewer. Will they learn anything? Not until it happens another ten or a dozen times. But in the end they really will learn because force and violence is all the left truly understands.
Everybody wants and expects a safe space sometimes. If you go on "Good Morning America" you don't expect to be the one guest they savagely attack. The problem is wanting to have a safe space everywhere, even where you are supposed to be confronting unorthodox or dissenting ideas. If you never get a safe space anywhere that is also a problem.
My point is that he knocked the protectiveness toward young people while insisting on protection for himself.
True, but even at this point in his career, he and the people backing and working on his show have more at stake than having their feelings hurt. He could have ignored her questions and spewed his talking points like the bots on the Sunday shows.
You seem to be “word thinking “ here.
Actually, he was a "man of the [moderate] left" for most of his life. He's become more erratic and cantankerous over the last decade. The crossover point may have been when his LDP joined the Tories in a governing coalition. Since then, he's supported BREXIT and objected to episodes of Fawlty Towers being canceled.
Howard: "Greg the Class Snowflake.....
.....since you are already halfway there."
Its true. Howard could just take the obvious "L" and and save himself more embarrassment, but Dunning Kruger types who are also leftists are incapable of taking that path.
In fact, Howard will just keep doubling down because of course he will. His cognitive dissonance from the rapid exposure of every narrative lie he has pushed for years is accelerating his moronic behavior.
Very much like a LLR we all used to know.
You need to STFU or I'll make your life miserable =/= I choose to end this conversation.
Readering said...
"And he sounded particularly like a sexist... "
Thank goodness. For a minute there I feared the leftists had forgotten their shtick.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा