Host Flip Flops
Sometimes, an interviewer has a bias and they conduct their interview that way. They have a slant, a tilt, an opinion that they think the guest they are interviewing shares. But then, in the course of the conversation, the guest says something that disputes that bias and the direction the interviewer is going. It shouldn’t happen since interviewers usually research their guests, know their views in advance and build the conversation around legitimate pro and con aspects.
But when it does happen, the interviewer has three choices; to drop down into neutral (which is probably where they should’ve been all along), or switch up, drop references to their bias and agree with the guest’s view or confront the guest, either by directly disagreeing or continuing to hold the view by periodically questioning the guest’s views.
This is never a good situation. There is no point in an interviewer asking a guest onto a program to then discount the expert opinion the were invited to provide … except when the point of the interview is to generate contention and entertainment, not necessarily an informative discussion. I’ve talked before about how an interviewer might not personally like an interviewee or even morally agree with some position they hold. But I think neutrality of the interviewer is necessary to let the audience decide how they feel about the issue, not for the interviewer to inject themselves into the balance. That is not the interviewer’s job.
If an interviewer does this, switching up, too many times, they can start to look and sound wishy washy, i.e., lose credibility. That’s certain death for someone who wants what they do taken seriously.