Nah david was just trying to provide the counter arguments that people make so he could make his argument to dispute them, only when they got the "6 million" question did david get emotionally attached and persist that chris was wrong, not the best journalism but it's still journalism, it happens all the time, you just move on to the next question at that point and let the viewers make up their own minds, just because the interview devolved into a debate on 1 question doesn't mean you need to walk out and shit talk each other.
Clash of 2 personalities disagreeing on contentious subject:
suborn(david) vs sensitive(chris)
I disagree with you. Journalists, reporters, etc. are supposed to just report. When they try to correct they are entering into "opinion piece" territory. They can do that without a guest and just state their position. They were not allowing Chris to state and maintain his opinion.
Nah david was just trying to provide the counter arguments that people make so he could make his argument to dispute them, only when they got the "6 million" question did david get emotionally attached and persist that chris was wrong, not the best journalism but it's still journalism, it happens all the time, you just move on to the next question at that point and let the viewers make up their own minds, just because the interview devolved into a debate on 1 question doesn't mean you need to walk out and shit talk each other.
Clash of 2 personalities disagreeing on contentious subject: suborn(david) vs sensitive(chris)
I disagree with you. Journalists, reporters, etc. are supposed to just report. When they try to correct they are entering into "opinion piece" territory. They can do that without a guest and just state their position. They were not allowing Chris to state and maintain his opinion.