Thread: Fox News "interviews" Reza Aslan. Most embarrassing interview by Fox yet?

He will sell more book's in the first month of its release because of that interview. I wold bee saying thanks to Fox News if I as him lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4.

Originally Posted by K0nTANK3Rous

I think as far as conducting an "interview" she failed, it was to choppy. It also doesn't seem she is using her own questions as she stated multiple times these were sent in by other "scholars" and live feeds. To me it's just another fail for a news agency. Chris Matthews, Brit Hume, Matt Lauer especially, Diane Sawyer, Katie Curic all have had huge failed interviews. I"m not sure what you're getting at here.

Which Couric interview do you think 'failed'?

Also, it wasn't about the questions she asked. It was about her insistence that his book was biased because he was a Muslim.

Don't try to excuse her behavior.

Originally Posted by iravedic

That said, did we really expect something more from Fox news?

Yes actually, i did. As i do with any news outlet.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Haven't had the chance to watch the interview because I'm at work with no headphones, but from the reaction, obviously there is some seriously bad behavior on the part of the host. However I would like to point out that there is also a level of profound stupidity shown in Aslan's book. The book just regurgitates the same stupid assed Muslim anti-Jesus rhetoric that Muslim Imams have taught for 1000 years. It's actually kind of insulting that anyone would even give the book any credibility at all, but since it attacks Christianity, of course the MSM loves it.



Fact is, if Aslan had written a similar book about Muhammad he would be murdered for it.

Why make a round about attempt at defending this interview without having watched it first?

And to the point both Scott and Ira are attempting to make I personally feel this is just another example of the media trying to be/make the news instead of report the news.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

Yes actually, i did. As i do with any news outlet.

I think what Ira meant was that Fox doesn't really interview guests but that they interrogate them.

i.e they always have an agenda and they run with it.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Haven't had the chance to watch the interview because I'm at work with no headphones, but from the reaction, obviously there is some seriously bad behavior on the part of the host. However I would like to point out that there is also a level of profound stupidity shown in Aslan's book. The book just regurgitates the same stupid assed Muslim anti-Jesus rhetoric that Muslim Imams have taught for 1000 years. It's actually kind of insulting that anyone would even give the book any credibility at all, but since it attacks Christianity, of course the MSM loves it.

Fact is, if Aslan had written a similar book about Muhammad he would be murdered for it.

Can you show where it regurgitates anti-Christian rhetoric? Or are you just regurgitating talking points you have heard, or is it a prejudiced assumption on your part? I have read it. It is a dry, historical analysis. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. I would suggest that it actually paints the historical Jesus as a man of the people fighting for what he believed in, but was persecuted by the Romans as an enemy of the state. Which I think is what most people believe. The debatable points are about scholarly material, who said what and where in a specific discussion; who was actually present for some event, etc.

The problem with the interview is not that it is "choppy," but like you just demonstrated, the producers and hostess assume it is anti-Christian; it is absolutely not. It is dry, scholarly history. The only questions she has are about his Muslim background. She also says that some people disagree with him. A little research on her and the producers part would have unearthed the debatable historic data and she could have mentioned them as points for discussion. But because they assume that it is anti-Christian propaganda, they are just trying to have a "gotcha" moment. At one point she asks him what his conclusions are. He responds with discussion of how crucifixion is a punishment the Romans reserved for those they deemed traitorous, or enemies of the state, and then proceeds to discuss the etymology of the word bandit which is how the Romans described Jesus' comrades. The hostess clearly becomes bored as none of this is the anti-Christian rhetoric she assumed would be there so she interurupts to ask why he never mentioned he was Muslim (another attempt to imply he is writing propaganda and concealing his intent). He responds that the introduction, on page 2 of the book discusses his background. He further mentions that in every single interview he has had, it has been mentioned.

Fact: It is not Muslim, anti-Christian propaganda. it does not even go near that; when I read it, he seemed to take great pains to avoid an appearance of that, probably with the worry that people would make assumptions because of his religious affiliation. The hostess and producers did not know that the book is not what they assumed, they did no actual research, and they attempted to call him out as writing Muslim propaganda. If you watch the video he does mention that his wife is Christian, and his brother in-law is an evangelical pastor. He is not writing from a religious bias.

I am speculating now, but I would suspect that like most people his affiliation with his religion is a cultural anchor, one of familiarity and identity, and he is probably more agnostic than Muslim. Most Christians I know, regardless of denomination have a much more agnostic opinion whether they realize it or not. Few are at the extremes... The assumption by those religious individuals is that like they, he must also be fanatical, and thus his work is that of a Muslim, not a historian. He certainly appears to identify with his academic roots more than his religious roots.

In all honesty - I'm probably not being fair to Fox News, I gave up on the network entirely sometime in 2011 when they hired Sarah Palin because she was "hot". Before that I would check in occasionally to see what they had to say. I haven't watched it since, so I have nothing really to base my judgment on - well other than this POS interview.

Originally Posted by SapiensErus

Can you show where it regurgitates anti-Christian rhetoric? Or are you just regurgitating talking points you have heard, or is it a prejudiced assumption on your part? I have read it. It is a dry, historical analysis. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. I would suggest that it actually paints the historical Jesus as a man of the people fighting for what he believed in, but was persecuted by the Romans as an enemy of the state. Which I think is what most people believe. The debatable points are about scholarly material, who said what and where in a specific discussion; who was actually present for some event, etc.

The problem with the interview is not that it is "choppy," but like you just demonstrated, the producers and hostess assume it is anti-Christian; it is absolutely not. It is dry, scholarly history. The only questions she has are about his Muslim background. She also says that some people disagree with him. A little research on her and the producers part would have unearthed the debatable historic data and she could have mentioned them as points for discussion. But because they assume that it is anti-Christian propaganda, they are just trying to have a "gotcha" moment. At one point she asks him what his conclusions are. He responds with discussion of how crucifixion is a punishment the Romans reserved for those they deemed traitorous, or enemies of the state, and then proceeds to discuss the etymology of the word bandit which is how the Romans described Jesus' comrades. The hostess clearly becomes bored as none of this is the anti-Christian rhetoric she assumed would be there so she interurupts to ask why he never mentioned he was Muslim (another attempt to imply he is writing propaganda and concealing his intent). He responds that the introduction, on page 2 of the book discusses his background. He further mentions that in every single interview he has had, it has been mentioned.

Fact: It is not Muslim, anti-Christian propaganda. it does not even go near that; when I read it, he seemed to take great pains to avoid an appearance of that, probably with the worry that people would make assumptions because of his religious affiliation. The hostess and producers did not know that the book is not what they assumed, they did no actual research, and they attempted to call him out as writing Muslim propaganda. If you watch the video he does mention that his wife is Christian, and his brother in-law is an evangelical pastor. He is not writing from a religious bias.

I am speculating now, but I would suspect that like most people his affiliation with his religion is a cultural anchor, one of familiarity and identity, and he is probably more agnostic than Muslim. Most Christians I know, regardless of denomination have a much more agnostic opinion whether they realize it or not. Few are at the extremes... The assumption by those religious individuals is that like they, he must also be fanatical, and thus his work is that of a Muslim, not a historian. He certainly appears to identify with his academic roots more than his religious roots.

ANNNNDDD let the incredibly long posts arguing points commence! :P

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

ANNNNDDD let the incredibly long posts arguing points commence! :P

I may not always agree with Soy, sorry old habits die hard, but it is quite difficult to argue against him because he does not fall prey to the "I am right because I said so" philosophy that plagues so many around here. There are others who share this trait, but he is one of the pillars.