David Seymour’s interview on Voice for Freedom radio station is fascinating

analysis: You are a public figure and have been asked to give an interview for the Voices for Freedom (VFF) radio station. do you agree?

Many people will answer “no” and choose not to give oxygen. Some might say yes, ignoring the pile of questions about vaccines and culture wars complaints and wanting to shift focus to the issues they want to discuss.

In an interview this week, ACT leader David Seymour offers a template for how to take a third route and get interviews from people from the media ecosystem who are often hostile to outside opinion. set.

VVF’s radio station, Reality Check Radio (RCR), has been producing shows for several months.

read more:
* Protesters called me a “disgusting lesbian”.this is what i want to say to them
* Michelle Visage talks conversion therapy and why RuPaul’s Drag Race isn’t for the faint of heart
* Never a nuisance for these talented queens and kings

A fascinating mix of content ranging from lengthy discussions with retired politicians, gardening tips, self-help, and 1970s-80s pop bangers. This is mixed with anti-vaccine complaints and climate change denial.

Despite this diversity of content, it is remarkably narrow ideologically.

Few, if any, controversial interviews. The same perspective on the same topic is repeated every day. A typical listening experience is to hear two people enthusiastically agree and then mutually wonder why the other disagrees with them.

It’s a safe space and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

This could be a great opportunity for political candidates. When RCR interviewed NZ First party leader Winston Peters, Peters did not embrace the most provocative allegations. Instead, he subtly moved the question to a safer place. It may have given the impression that he agreed with the question, even though he did not answer it directly, which is a tried and true political tactic.

This resembles another common strategy of rejecting the premise of the question and answering with more favorable terms.

Seymour could have taken either approach. Instead, he holed up in safe territory and probably lost his party votes.

Interviewed by former RNZ newsreader Paul Brennan. Two of his current concerns are that the COVID-19 vaccine is causing widespread harm, and that children are being indoctrinated into progressive understandings of gender. .

These issues unsurprisingly surfaced during the interview.

“I have a lot of… how can I say… concerns about the new social attitudes creeping into the classroom,” Brennan asked Seymour, pausing.

“You know what I mean. People are even concerned about what young kids are hearing in school, like, perhaps, encouraging certain lifestyles and life choices. Do you have anything to say about it?”

Let’s pause to analyze what’s going on here.

Brennan has strong and outspoken views on this issue.

In an earlier interview with a friendly guest, he said drag queens are making concerted efforts to sexualize children, and that there is something “ceremonial” about gender reassignment surgery. suggested there is.

On Monday, he said reports of online hate against transgender people were biased because “their narratives about transgender people are so positive.”

Brennan probably knows he can’t speak in those terms. His interviewee is from outside the RCR bubble. People who don’t usually listen may feel uncomfortable.

Instead, he seems to be practicing self-censorship, trying to insinuate what he’s talking about in hopes that Seymour will do it.

Seymour is not.

“So let’s look at the evidence,” Seymour replies. “What are the examples that bother you?”

Brennan clarified that he was talking about “a lot of transgender talk in schools… there seems to be gender talk going on in schools to very young kids.”

“So what are some examples of very young children being told?” Seymour replies.

“You can’t say it in words, but you should know.”

“What do you know specifically? You have to explain it to me.”

This goes on for a while. Brennan admits he can’t give examples, but argues that’s a problem. Ms Seymour has asked Ms Brennan at least six times to articulate her point of view, before helping Ms Brennan with examples of other things that bother her at school.

Back on topic, Brennan asked about drag queens reading to children, but again didn’t say why it mattered.

“What do you think is wrong or wrong about drag queens?” asked Seymour.

“I think people’s concern is about being exposed to sexual expression at too young an age.” [sic] Pretty old…” Brennan replied.

“I mean, you’re not worried about drag queens, you’re worried about sexualization. If the question is someone who is a drag queen is going to sexualize their children? , you’re not against drag queens, you’re against people who sexualize children, and neither am I.”

This is notable because Mr. Brennan did not have to articulate why he supported his views. He can voice his concerns knowing that most of his guests won’t disagree with him and that his audience holds the same beliefs.

By urging Brennan to clarify his point, Seymour neutralized the common strategy. It is to whisper ideas into the debate by pressuring politicians to take positions based on vague concerns held by random people.

Later in the interview, Brennan said many of the show’s listeners supported the protests in Congress. Was it Seymour?

“I support the right to protest, but I didn’t support much of the action,” Seymour replies.

“What kind of behavior are you talking about, specifically?” Brennan counters. “It looked peaceful, but depending on who you talk to… what exactly?”

Mr Seymour said he supported the public with genuine concern about the mandate and the government’s pandemic policy.

“But let’s be honest, some were wielding nooses at us, others were spreading plans to kidnap us, others were blocking roads, shutting down small businesses…”

Brennan tries to interrupt. “I think I know where this is going. Here’s a list of all the threats you’ve received, okay.”

“No, not really,” Seymour continues.

“There was harassment of schoolgirls on the way to school, and some businesses suffered from two years of COVID-19 restrictions, and instead of being seen as allies and sympathizers, they were banned from operating for another month.”

Brennan is trying to do what Seymour did before – encouraging him to clarify his point of view with examples. Instead of struggling, Seymour unapologetically lists them.

In doing so, he presented listeners with what might be a new perspective. He stands by the protest’s intentions, refusing to allow unsightly elements.

Brennan misrepresents Seymour’s allegations and tries to get back on track when Seymour continues.

“So you were sitting there scared, is that what you’re telling me?” Brennan says.

“No, I didn’t say that at all.”

“But you’re talking about threats. It seems there was fear there. Well, you were scared.”

“No, I’m not saying that the threats affected me personally…I know you want to put words on my mouth.”

Some will disagree with Seymour’s decision to be interviewed in the first place, but his approach to doing so was probably worth it.

Political views aside, he asserted his position while preventing interviewers from using his presence to inject ideas through suggestion.

By making responses conditional on the provision of evidence, he set a basic standard of discourse quality.

Election years are likely to be flooded with content on hot topics, so this could be an example worth following by other politicians. Even if you lose votes.