Platforming has become an increasingly prominent issue with the rise of social media. Mainstream media figures are now routinely featured on the same platforms as extremists. While the democratization of media has allowed new voices to be heard, the rise of extremists cannot be ignored. Look no further than the January 6th insurrection to see how social media can enable extremist acts.
Platforming is particularly relevant when discussing one-on-one interviews. One-on-one interviews are a sign to your audience that “this person is worth speaking to”. Thus, platforming controversial figures requires hosts to meet two criteria to reduce the risk of potential harm.
First, they must legitimately engage with the ideas and arguments presented. Scoffing at the talking points of an extremist is counterproductive, giving the impression that the host is ignorant to the issue being discussed. It may plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the audience. For instance, “Maybe 6 million Jews did not really die during the holocaust”, a statement that 20% of Americans aged 18-29 now believe.
Second, the host must have a comprehensive and sophisticated knowledge on the topic in order to give appropriate pushback. To combat the diffusion of harmful ideas, hosts must be properly equipped to respond to outlandish claims presented by extremists. In addition, regardless of the hosts personal views, they should give relevant pushback to the interviewee.
To illustrate this responsibility, we will look at two interviews with Vladimir Putin conducted by two different people: Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. Tucker Carlson is an American conservative pundit who recently interviewed Vladimir Putin. In this interview, Tucker Carlson meets none of these criteria. He provides very little pushback to Putin’s arguments regarding Russia’s territorial claims over Ukraine despite a number of basic historical inaccuracies. Carlson simply does not have the knowledge to engage with Putin’s claims and appears remarkably out of his depth. While Carlson will argue it was solely an “interview”, the reality is more sinister. Carlson gave Putin a platform to spew outlandish claims to legitimize a war that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands and the displacement of millions.
Megyn Kelly is able to legitimately challenge Putin in key areas. She presents evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election and ties between Putin and those indicted. She outlines specifically the geopolitical context to explain why Russia might seek to undermine US elections. While Putin is still given a platform, the audience is equipped with key information to combat the claims presented.
“Vladimir Putin – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009” by World Economic Forum is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Related
Putin and Platforming
Platforming has become an increasingly prominent issue with the rise of social media. Mainstream media figures are now routinely featured on the same platforms as extremists. While the democratization of media has allowed new voices to be heard, the rise of extremists cannot be ignored. Look no further than the January 6th insurrection to see how social media can enable extremist acts.
Platforming is particularly relevant when discussing one-on-one interviews. One-on-one interviews are a sign to your audience that “this person is worth speaking to”. Thus, platforming controversial figures requires hosts to meet two criteria to reduce the risk of potential harm.
First, they must legitimately engage with the ideas and arguments presented. Scoffing at the talking points of an extremist is counterproductive, giving the impression that the host is ignorant to the issue being discussed. It may plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the audience. For instance, “Maybe 6 million Jews did not really die during the holocaust”, a statement that 20% of Americans aged 18-29 now believe.
Second, the host must have a comprehensive and sophisticated knowledge on the topic in order to give appropriate pushback. To combat the diffusion of harmful ideas, hosts must be properly equipped to respond to outlandish claims presented by extremists. In addition, regardless of the hosts personal views, they should give relevant pushback to the interviewee.
To illustrate this responsibility, we will look at two interviews with Vladimir Putin conducted by two different people: Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. Tucker Carlson is an American conservative pundit who recently interviewed Vladimir Putin. In this interview, Tucker Carlson meets none of these criteria. He provides very little pushback to Putin’s arguments regarding Russia’s territorial claims over Ukraine despite a number of basic historical inaccuracies. Carlson simply does not have the knowledge to engage with Putin’s claims and appears remarkably out of his depth. While Carlson will argue it was solely an “interview”, the reality is more sinister. Carlson gave Putin a platform to spew outlandish claims to legitimize a war that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands and the displacement of millions.
Megyn Kelly is able to legitimately challenge Putin in key areas. She presents evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election and ties between Putin and those indicted. She outlines specifically the geopolitical context to explain why Russia might seek to undermine US elections. While Putin is still given a platform, the audience is equipped with key information to combat the claims presented.
“Vladimir Putin – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009” by World Economic Forum is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related