Part1 Interview: What does it imply?
This is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
===============================
What is your opinion on this dialog? Who is right and who is wrong?
Well, there is no right and no wrong. It depends on one's motive when he/she says that.
It is evident that the female interviewer's statement is sort of "challenging", so is the statement from the general Reinwald. but what is the consequence when the interviewer or the general chose to mention that arguments?
The lady is of course obviously inviting "argument" or "war" with/without intension or insulting the general's training method with/without intension. It is also up to the general to accept or reject the invitation. He has a choice to make the dialog going smoothly, sweatly or happily, or oppositely.
Due to the ego and the "facts" that the man has, he chose to accept the "war" by replying "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you"
Does he have other authenative to reply the statement of that lady so that both of their self esteem can be fulfilled and the dialog can be continued smoothly?
Any suggestion?? Do leave your message in the comment box.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
===============================
What is your opinion on this dialog? Who is right and who is wrong?
Well, there is no right and no wrong. It depends on one's motive when he/she says that.
It is evident that the female interviewer's statement is sort of "challenging", so is the statement from the general Reinwald. but what is the consequence when the interviewer or the general chose to mention that arguments?
The lady is of course obviously inviting "argument" or "war" with/without intension or insulting the general's training method with/without intension. It is also up to the general to accept or reject the invitation. He has a choice to make the dialog going smoothly, sweatly or happily, or oppositely.
Due to the ego and the "facts" that the man has, he chose to accept the "war" by replying "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you"
Does he have other authenative to reply the statement of that lady so that both of their self esteem can be fulfilled and the dialog can be continued smoothly?
Any suggestion?? Do leave your message in the comment box.
posted by Javier Lopez at 2:24 AM
1 Comments:
I have no doubt that this converstion is a fully typically misleading on both sides, for the general and the interviewer.
I think the interview would have gone more smoothly if the woman would have precised her concern over the handling with weapons.
Furthermore, she only asked in negative phrases, such as don't? It seems more like a imperative to me, like an order, which might causes offences.
Post a Comment
<< Home