Many conservatives are angry with the BBC’s Andrew Neil for his interview on Friday with Ben Shapiro. I think they’re missing the key point here.
I recognize why Shapiro was aggravated by Neil’s questions and style. Suggesting to Shapiro that the Georgia heartbeat bill, which would ban abortion when a heartbeat is detected, is a return to the “dark ages,” Neil struck a nerve that many conservatives would likely share. Neil also derided central contentions of Shapiro’s new book.
But what people are missing is why Neil did this. His intent wasn’t to insult Shapiro for insult’s sake. His intent was to throw Shapiro off balance. This is standard fare Neil interviewing in an old vein of British journalism: getting under the subject’s skin. Neil has taken the same course interviewing others who hold views antithetical to Shapiro. Consider his interview with a Greenpeace activist, or Labour’s treasury chief, or the left-wing journalist Owen Jones.
So when Neil started Shapiro’s interview by referencing the Green New Deal as an indication that Democrats have all the new ideas, he didn’t actually believe that. He was just trying to get Shapiro to the point as to why he believes conservative ideas are better. Yes, Neil could have done this better had he known Shapiro likes to cut to the heart of issues. But Neil isn’t a liberal pretending to be an objective anchor. He’s actually a journalist with a long record in U.K. conservative media.
The basic point here is that Neil’s style is focused on making interviewees uncomfortable so that viewers get a sense both of the interviewee and their passion or otherwise for what they say. Shapiro was successful in this regard: he articulated his beliefs resolutely. Neil and Shapiro should both be happy for that.
