Having just finished listening to this inerview, I have to say that I am very proud of Bishop Minns for maintaining his composure through what appears to be a very liberal interviewer who is a supporter of VGR and TEC and trying to twist is words and get him (Bp. Minns) to admit to things that would not be true nor correct. WOW! Good job Bishop Minns!
The interviewer is condescending, argumentative, and bound and determined to trip Martyn up…he is out for blood. Thank God that Jesus already gave it at the Cross. No powers or principalities will prevail against it.
I have mixed views. Yes the interview was hard and it looked as though the interviewer had been briefed by the TEC Minister for Propaganda. However unlike many of our interviewers he did let +Minns answer and I had a feeling that +Minns came across more powerfully and the interview was the more informative because of it.
It seems to me that the earlier posts are very generous optimistic views of a very troubling interview. I have a tremendous respect for him. This was NOT a good interview. This interviewer is clearly a liberal journalist. His questions were slanted but he was fair in his handling of Martyn. His questions were very carefully crafted and strategically structured. The questions clearly threw Martyn off. The responses did not take disarm this interviewer. If fact, I think the opposite occurred.
I would suggest he get a media consultant. Furthermore, to those who have put a positive spin on this interview, I would suggest that we analyze this interview from the perspective not of people already convinced of where we stand. Rather, review the interview from the perspective of your average Episcopalian who is undecided on the issues. Within that context, I really don’t think this interview did a lot to convince anyone of the strengths of the orthodox position on these issues. In that context, I find the interview distressing. Perhaps he was tired. NOT good.
hyacinth wrote:
[blockquote]It seems to me that the earlier posts are very generous optimistic views of a very troubling interview. I have a tremendous respect for him. This was NOT a good interview. This interviewer is clearly a liberal journalist. His questions were slanted but he was fair in his handling of Martyn. His questions were very carefully crafted and strategically structured. The questions clearly threw Martyn off. The responses did not take disarm this interviewer. If fact, I think the opposite occurred. [/blockquote]
Yes, the interviewer clearly had an ax to grind. I disagree with your observation that +Martyn was thrown off. There is a lag in transmission of sound which accounted for some of the lag time in his responses (and I would hope +Martyn would pause a moment to give a thoughtful response, which he did). But he did not let Stephen derail him and +Martyn was gracious and charitable in his responses beyond the Christian call of duty. This is especially important given the fact that Martyn is a bishop in Christ’s One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I would hope and pray that neutral viewers would question why +Martyn did not go on the attack, which might lead them to want to know more about from whence he comes.
That’s a witness opportunity.
Of course not all neutral viewers would have this reaction but I am willing to commend this interview to God’s care and move forward. After all, it’s a free country, at least for now.
My observations are made from a critical discourse analysis /critical linguistics perspective. What you view as pause to give a thoughtful response, other may very easily view as pause to give very calculated responses. Measured responses tell a lot – both in terms of the thoroughness of the response and in terms of what was not answered. When one opts NOT to directly tackle the precise question being asked, the neutral listener will automatically grant credence to the individual who asked the pointed question RATHER THAN given the responder the benefit of the doubt.
Answering “trick or trap questions” directly even when the answers are not going to paint one in the best light is better than giving a measured response that elicits doubts about the thoroughness of one’s response.
Hope this helps better to understand the underpinnings of my observations. Martyn needs a media consultant to coach him in dealing with pit bull journalists.
Sackur is a fairly typical BBC journalist with an animus (openly expressed on air) toward Christianity of just about any stripe, but especially the true variety. From his knowledge of the inner workings of Tec, I think he must have been briefed by 815. Not at all surprising when you know what kind of people the BBC employ. I didn’t watch it all but I thought Minns handled his attacks pretty well – but so unsmiling!
Did Minns mention the catastrophic decline in Tec and the welter of law suits engulfing the ‘church’?
Aggressive, well prepared and well researched interviews are standard fare on the BBC. They do not show bias, this sort of testing interview is given to everyone. In fact, when opposite sides of an argument are present at a panel interview, it is quite amusing to see the interviewer switch his fire to the other side when he changes interviewee.
Hyacinth is right; this was a poor performance from Martyn Minns. It may be that he is not used to being interviewed by someone who is both well prepared and hostile. Hostile interviewers are often not very well informed and well informed interviewers (for example on AnglicanTV) tend to be sympathetic.
Wow! Brutal interviewer!
Having just finished listening to this inerview, I have to say that I am very proud of Bishop Minns for maintaining his composure through what appears to be a very liberal interviewer who is a supporter of VGR and TEC and trying to twist is words and get him (Bp. Minns) to admit to things that would not be true nor correct. WOW! Good job Bishop Minns!
The interviewer is condescending, argumentative, and bound and determined to trip Martyn up…he is out for blood. Thank God that Jesus already gave it at the Cross. No powers or principalities will prevail against it.
I have mixed views. Yes the interview was hard and it looked as though the interviewer had been briefed by the TEC Minister for Propaganda. However unlike many of our interviewers he did let +Minns answer and I had a feeling that +Minns came across more powerfully and the interview was the more informative because of it.
+Martyn provided a faithful witness for his Lord and orthodox Anglicanism. He was gracious and charitable to an interviewer who wanted his head.
It seems to me that the earlier posts are very generous optimistic views of a very troubling interview. I have a tremendous respect for him. This was NOT a good interview. This interviewer is clearly a liberal journalist. His questions were slanted but he was fair in his handling of Martyn. His questions were very carefully crafted and strategically structured. The questions clearly threw Martyn off. The responses did not take disarm this interviewer. If fact, I think the opposite occurred.
I would suggest he get a media consultant. Furthermore, to those who have put a positive spin on this interview, I would suggest that we analyze this interview from the perspective not of people already convinced of where we stand. Rather, review the interview from the perspective of your average Episcopalian who is undecided on the issues. Within that context, I really don’t think this interview did a lot to convince anyone of the strengths of the orthodox position on these issues. In that context, I find the interview distressing. Perhaps he was tired. NOT good.
hyacinth wrote:
[blockquote]It seems to me that the earlier posts are very generous optimistic views of a very troubling interview. I have a tremendous respect for him. This was NOT a good interview. This interviewer is clearly a liberal journalist. His questions were slanted but he was fair in his handling of Martyn. His questions were very carefully crafted and strategically structured. The questions clearly threw Martyn off. The responses did not take disarm this interviewer. If fact, I think the opposite occurred. [/blockquote]
Yes, the interviewer clearly had an ax to grind. I disagree with your observation that +Martyn was thrown off. There is a lag in transmission of sound which accounted for some of the lag time in his responses (and I would hope +Martyn would pause a moment to give a thoughtful response, which he did). But he did not let Stephen derail him and +Martyn was gracious and charitable in his responses beyond the Christian call of duty. This is especially important given the fact that Martyn is a bishop in Christ’s One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I would hope and pray that neutral viewers would question why +Martyn did not go on the attack, which might lead them to want to know more about from whence he comes.
That’s a witness opportunity.
Of course not all neutral viewers would have this reaction but I am willing to commend this interview to God’s care and move forward. After all, it’s a free country, at least for now.
My observations are made from a critical discourse analysis /critical linguistics perspective. What you view as pause to give a thoughtful response, other may very easily view as pause to give very calculated responses. Measured responses tell a lot – both in terms of the thoroughness of the response and in terms of what was not answered. When one opts NOT to directly tackle the precise question being asked, the neutral listener will automatically grant credence to the individual who asked the pointed question RATHER THAN given the responder the benefit of the doubt.
Answering “trick or trap questions” directly even when the answers are not going to paint one in the best light is better than giving a measured response that elicits doubts about the thoroughness of one’s response.
Hope this helps better to understand the underpinnings of my observations. Martyn needs a media consultant to coach him in dealing with pit bull journalists.
Sackur is a fairly typical BBC journalist with an animus (openly expressed on air) toward Christianity of just about any stripe, but especially the true variety. From his knowledge of the inner workings of Tec, I think he must have been briefed by 815. Not at all surprising when you know what kind of people the BBC employ. I didn’t watch it all but I thought Minns handled his attacks pretty well – but so unsmiling!
Did Minns mention the catastrophic decline in Tec and the welter of law suits engulfing the ‘church’?
Aggressive, well prepared and well researched interviews are standard fare on the BBC. They do not show bias, this sort of testing interview is given to everyone. In fact, when opposite sides of an argument are present at a panel interview, it is quite amusing to see the interviewer switch his fire to the other side when he changes interviewee.
Hyacinth is right; this was a poor performance from Martyn Minns. It may be that he is not used to being interviewed by someone who is both well prepared and hostile. Hostile interviewers are often not very well informed and well informed interviewers (for example on AnglicanTV) tend to be sympathetic.
I am sure he will learn from this experience.
Just to prove my point, you can see Stephen Sackur giving the same treatment to the militant atheist Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/07/hardtalk/dawkins24jul.ram
However, Dawkins handles it better than Minns.
Hyacinth, we must agree to disagree.