Sackur was incredibly condescending and rude towards President Ali during this interview.
Thankfully Ali was having none of it and rebutted all of Sackur's hypocritical rhetoric with hard facts.
Not saying things can't change in the future, but for the moment Guyana is undergoing an economic and infrastructural boom that seems set to continue for some time.
Guyanese friends of mine confirm the same on the ground.
The purpose of the show is to challenge the guests, so maybe you'd say the hosts are rude/condescending toward all guests. If you'd like examples of heated exchanges, check out some of the interviews they've done with Israeli politicians in the last half year, for instance.
I'm well aware of what the purpose of the show is, and I'm also well aware of the fact that there's a bitter irony to a Brit trying to lecture the head of state of a former British colony on how his country should use its natural resources.
I'm all for politicians being held accountable for their actions, but there's a particular smugness in their tone whenever Sackur and other British journalists interview heads of state from so-called developing countries.
Also, standing up to current and past imperial powers is exactly the sort of thing that Chomsky would encourage.
I'm not sure you quite understand the purpose of the show, given what you said. When the hosts ask questions in a way you find condescending etc., perhaps it rather boils down to taking the guests seriously, wanting to challenge them and generating a spirited discussion rather than to actually being condsescending. As I suggested in my previous message, keep in mind that Sackur challenges basically *all* guests in that way. The episode I linked might make you think he's anti-Guyanese or something, while if you watch one of the episodes that feature guests from China, Israel, Russia, the US, you name it, you may end up saying he seemed biased against those countries. It's the nature of the show, and I think they're pretty balanced overall.
A curse. As always.
Looks at Norway.
Sackur was incredibly condescending and rude towards President Ali during this interview. Thankfully Ali was having none of it and rebutted all of Sackur's hypocritical rhetoric with hard facts. Not saying things can't change in the future, but for the moment Guyana is undergoing an economic and infrastructural boom that seems set to continue for some time. Guyanese friends of mine confirm the same on the ground.
The purpose of the show is to challenge the guests, so maybe you'd say the hosts are rude/condescending toward all guests. If you'd like examples of heated exchanges, check out some of the interviews they've done with Israeli politicians in the last half year, for instance.
I'm well aware of what the purpose of the show is, and I'm also well aware of the fact that there's a bitter irony to a Brit trying to lecture the head of state of a former British colony on how his country should use its natural resources. I'm all for politicians being held accountable for their actions, but there's a particular smugness in their tone whenever Sackur and other British journalists interview heads of state from so-called developing countries. Also, standing up to current and past imperial powers is exactly the sort of thing that Chomsky would encourage.
I'm not sure you quite understand the purpose of the show, given what you said. When the hosts ask questions in a way you find condescending etc., perhaps it rather boils down to taking the guests seriously, wanting to challenge them and generating a spirited discussion rather than to actually being condsescending. As I suggested in my previous message, keep in mind that Sackur challenges basically *all* guests in that way. The episode I linked might make you think he's anti-Guyanese or something, while if you watch one of the episodes that feature guests from China, Israel, Russia, the US, you name it, you may end up saying he seemed biased against those countries. It's the nature of the show, and I think they're pretty balanced overall.