Reverend Brown’s Desk September 14, 2018
REVIEW Michael Avenatti's Guest Appearance on Tucker Carlson by Reverend Patryse Brown, M.A., .M.Div., (Candidate D.Min.)
It is my understanding that part of the purpose of an interview is to provide an audience the opportunity to hear the perspective of the person being interviewed. Tucker Carlson continually interrupted his guest, preventing Michael Avenatti from providing a complete, uninterrupted response. I was not able to hear the full responses of Michael Avenatti. I wanted to hear what Michael Avenatti had to say. Tucker Carlson prevented viewers from hearing his guest.
I appreciated that Michael Avenatti demonstrated great restraint; he was not distracted by Tucker Carlson's transparent jabs and interruptions. It seems that Tucker Carlson's sole purpose for the "interview" was to make accusations and to state his personal views about Michael Avenatti. Tucker Carlson misled his audience. Tucker Carlson had no true intention of providing the audience with the opportunity to hear a good, educated argument.
An educated argument dictates that one presents and allows an audience to hear and examine the polemics of an argument.[1] An author or interviewer demonstrates knowledge of his subject when he is able to provide his audience (whether they are readers or audience members) with perspectives that are in opposition to his own outlook.[2] However, Tucker Carlson seemed as if he were attempting to suppress Michael Avenatti's perspective. Continually interrupting Michael Avenatti’s responses, Tucker Carlson seemed afraid of Michael Avenatti’s challenging responses.
Tucker Carlson also attempted to build an argument about Stormy Daniels' well-being based upon a false (or at least, undetermined) premise. The false premise was this: Stormy Daniels' life is "stalled." When did Stormy Daniels state that her life is "stalled"? Based upon her interviews, Stormy Daniels appears to be doing very well.
The two men, Michael Avenatti and Tucker Carlson, have two, distinct methods regarding discourse and the presentation of information. As an attorney, Michael Avenatti is familiar with an organized method to examining and disseminating information. Whereas, Tucker Carslon seems to be acclimated to (or at least, inclined to) entertainment television. In Tucker Carlson’s attempt to subdue Michael Avenatti, Carlson put his hope in a familiar tactic: Antagonistic phrases - such as “you don’t understand the question” and other such catch phrases that are used to agitate, bait, and distract an opponent. This is a child-like, high-school stratagem. Many people move beyond this unsophisticated tactic once they access higher education and learn the skillful art of formal discussion. Yet, Tucker Carlson seems still tied to a green approach to argument and discussion that he should have grown beyond and discarded in his first year of college. I preferred Michael Avenatti's method of engagement. I would have liked hearing more of what Michael Avenatti desired to say. In the future, I hope Michael Avenatti accepts (or requests) interviews from shows that lean toward an intellectual (or at least, professional) platform. That way, I can enjoy hearing more of Michael Avenatti's perspective in an intelligently, designed interview in which the host, professionally, presents all views and then allows the audience to develop their conclusions based upon the arguments presented.
----------- References 1Adam McClendon, Presentation: Critical Reading and Developing Arguments. 2018. 2 Ibid. Presentation: Critical Reading and Developing Arguments. 2018.
How To Repent: 1) Ask God to forgive you of your sins, 2 Turn away from your sins, commit those sins no more, and 3) Turn your life to God. Believe that there is only One God, Jehovah - and the only way to God, Salvation, and Forgiveness of sin is through faith in Christ Jesus. Read the Bible Daily. ----------- Ⓒ 2018 Brown & Layne Independent News |
