The premise --- of the interview was conflict-based. It is surprising to me that JB would have agreed to the interview in the first place! Then he got upset when the questions were not going his way and at one point, terminates the interview. TS is excellent in garnering Pathos portraying the grandmother in solitary confinement without being convicted of anything. JB's continued loss of ethos was compounded by his body language. His voice was too soft, his rebuttal arguments were weak, his body language was protective where he "hugged" himself in different ways. TS's body language gained him ethos in that his body language, tone of voice was commanding, he leaned forward and peered out over his glasses in an intimidating posture. TS had logos in that he built reasonable arguments and had the statistics to back them up. JB resorted to ad hominem attacks when all else failed and again lost ethos. Ending the interview mid-stream appeared like he was throwing a childish "hissy-fit," ethos- destroying again. JB said "you want to put me in "the bank of guilty people." This gave the impression that he was indeed guilty! He ended the interview telling TS what he would like him to do next time...why would he ever agree to an interview, when he had to know he'd be slain, in the future? JB's ethos was destroyed, TS's logos, pathos and ethos were enhanced. Finally, it was reminescent of the Jordan Peterson interview, where TS put words in his mouth, the difference being that Jordan Peterson was a much worthier opponent!

Source author: Marie Betts-Johnson mbj@ipicalifornia.com