Dawkins on CBC

It's a pleasant, relaxed conversation where each side has the opportunity to talk, and the interviewer isn't too intrusive.

What would you expect? After all, we're polite Canadians, right?? :-)

But on a more serious note, I find that the CBC does a pretty good job of "interviewing for information" as opposed to posturing.

George Stromboulopolos is a great interviewer. I should really watch his show more often.

the interviewer isn't too intrusive

That's because he's amazing. By far the best TV show host that the CBC has. But I think you'll get that title for him from any Canadian under 30.

The show airs 3 times a night, I caught the interview the first time around, and the second time I grabbed my step-dad to come watch it. He's a minister and said that Dawkins seemed pretty reasonable - so I think George Strombo did a really great job at interviewing him and actually let Dawkins get out what he wanted... unlike some people.

Quicktime version is here:

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0705/20070507_richarddawkins.mov

By far the best TV show host that the CBC has. But I think you'll get that title for him from any Canadian under 30.

Agree. If you'll forgive a stereotype or two, George S. and the CBC have done an excellent job of positioning him to appeal both to the under-30's (as Katie said) and also the old farts like me who don't much like to watch anyone that young and good-looking. :-) But in terms of quality, no argument ... he's good.

The only Canadian TV interviewer I've seen that I'd put (slightly) ahead of him for "political" topics is Steve Pakin on TVOntario.

See also the same interviewer's sesion with June Callwood, a canadian journalist and social activist of note. Towards the end she gives her perspective on death.

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1513

See also the same interviewer's sesion with June Callwood, a canadian journalist and social activist of note. Towards the end she gives her perspective on death.

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1513

I wonder who O'Reilly is "interviewing" tonight? Eat your hearts out!!

Sorry. That was not called for ... it's un-Canadian to gloat ...

Based solely on this brief interview, I can't agree that George Stromboulopolos is a "great interviewer". Just because he is not a boor like O'Reilley doesn't automatically pop him over into great interviewer territory. A relaxed demeanor and geniality doesn't do it in of itself. His questions were passable, his comments were passable, but it didn't strike me as anything to write home about.

I also found the "Bio" of Dawkins and his introduction to be a silly waste of air-time and the graphics department of that show. The overall grade of the show and interviewer was about a C or maybe a C+.

I guess the 'framing' problem Mooney and Nisbet seem to have with atheists in the public eye isn't actually with Dawkins himself, but with those who like to portray him as the "Dread Atheist Dawkins". Who knew?

*Very* nice tie Dawkins was wearing ;-)

*Very* nice tie Dawkins was wearing ;-)

"that horrible wmv format"
Try VLC, works wonderfully on my laptop. Plays almost everything.
http://www.videolan.org/

I also found the "Bio" of Dawkins and his introduction to be a silly waste of air-time

Nonsense. For a general-audience news show, I found his bio to be quite appropriate. The folks involved in this debate often tend to forget that there are lots of people out there who have little or no idea who Dawkins is.

Questions were quite good. Personally, I'd rather have seen a more probing interview which was twice as long, but that's not what this was intended to be.

A-

cm, we'll take what we can get. To our Murkin eyes, stabbed and scraped and burned to the nerve as they are by the piss-poor journalism by everyone on Murkin network- and cable-news, he's a welcome change. Someone who actually asks in depth questions and listens to the anwers, as opposed to re-asking the same goddamned question every five seconds without letting the subject spurt out more than three syllables.

I hate journalism.

CM - it's also a show that is generally targeted towards a younger audience... There have been statements made in the past that George is trying to create a show and atmosphere that is appealing to young adults. As a member of that target audience I find the bios interesting and completely appropriate. George's style is one you don't find anywhere else accompanied by important issues and interviews.

Thanks for linking to my blog PZ. Thanks to you I'll get more hits today than I have all year. *Does happy dance*

I don't think George Stromboulopolos did his best interviewing with Dawkins. That's a shame because he's usually a fantastic interviewer. CBC's The Hour is an entertaining news hour, showing how an old school television network can make the transition to a younger audience. They do a lot of science stories as well. Other than the Daily Show and Colbert Report, there isn't really anything like it in the US.

You know, debating psychotic creationists is a waste of time and gives them a false stature. I'd far rather hear a debate between Richard Dawkins and Niles Eldridge, who have quite different views on the role of the gene in the organism - that's a valid scientific debate, and a very interesting and important one as well.

Dawkins is making a mistake, at least when it comes to educating the public, by attempting to engage the creationists. It's a waste of time.

I watched it on the cbc's webpage and got some monster slowdowns in places. Made Dawkins sound like Darth Vader. Actually kinda cool and surprisingly effective as a speaking voice, since his natural voice is rather high and soft.

He mentions in the interview that he has a tv program coming up where he interviews Deepak Chopra. Said it will be airing in June or July I think.

Is Strombopolous related to Stephanopoulos?

Or Stromboli?

Correction: What do you get if you cross a Stromboli with George Stephanopoulos?

Based solely on this brief interview, I can't agree that George Stromboulopolos is a "great interviewer".

So don't. I didn't base it on that interview. It was based on his obvious ability to do proper research and really know his subject that he showed way back when I first saw him on Much Music. But I do think that this was a good interview. It wasn't the bestest interview in the whole wide world, but to me it was a much more interesting interview than most others. He didn't just jump into the most vicious or titillatingly bits; he drew Dawkins into talking about the things that aren't in the book.

Maybe I should rephrase it, though. It's shocking that an interviewer who seems to have learned about their subject before interviewing them stands out. George S. (based on previous interviews that I have seen) stands out.

Steve, I went to Dawkins webpage and they said:

Richard Dawkins wrote:
...The date of transmission was originally going to be January 2007, then it was moved to February, then the forecast was moved to April. The current forecast for transmission is July or August. I don't know why the date keeps getting moved like this. It will not be about religion, but about all the other kinds of irrationality -- astrology, dowsing, homeopathy, crystal healing etc.
I hope this helps. If I hear any more up-to-date information, I'll post it on our website.
Richard

I'm anticipating that program as well.

In fairness to George Strombopolous and in reference to my above deflation of him in the comments:

a) This was the only thing I've seen the guy do. I can't base much on that.
b) I realize that the show is pitched to a young market and so has to keep a certain light feel in play.
c) It was hard enough for me to read Dawkins 400+ page book and hold all of it in my mind/memory; I can only imagine how tough it is to do that, digest it, form questions, and ask them while on tv, even with the help of a staff. Interviewing well has got to be hard, particularly if you have new guests every day/week.
d) All this being said, I am still hungry for a really damn good interview on this topic, and have been disappointed lately with what Hitchens got on The Daily Show and then Charlie Rose.

Stromboulopolos is a pretty good interviewer. I just wish he wouldn't try to be funny--he's not that good at humour. As for this particular interview, he gave Dawkins about 12 minutes of conversation. That's more than pretty much any other Dawkins interview I've seen (except maybe Jeremy Pax).

PS: Stromboulopolos is tiny. I went for lunch in the CBC lobby a couple of months ago and saw him at the other end. He can't be more than 5 foot 2. TV can really make you look larger than life.

PS: Stromboulopolos is tiny. I went for lunch in the CBC lobby a couple of months ago and saw him at the other end. He can't be more than 5 foot 2. TV can really make you look larger than life.

5'6! Let the man have his inches!

I work only a few blocks from the CBC! I wish I had known about this earlier, I woulda got one of my old sales reps to scam me an autograph on my books.

Hell, I would have gone out and bought an old hardcover copy of the selfish gene.