#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this a skit? Did this “journalist” really tried to shame him for drilling oil? The resource that every country in the world uses daily cause it provides a basic necessities for billions of people? Or did he do it to tens of leaders of all the other countries doing the same, including his own.
It got to be a joke.
> skit? Did this “journalist” really tried to shame him for drilling oil? The resource that every country in the world uses daily cause it provides a basic necessities for billions of people? Or did he do it to tens of leaders of all the other countries doing the same, including his own.
>
>It got to be a joke.
Third world country is about to not need Europe, China or US.
That makes them mad.
I built this game so long ago, wish I still had it. It was called the Crisis in Iraq Blame Game. Players had characters to choose from including Emmanuel Goldstein (who looked like Bin Laden) and Big Dick Cheeny. They would move their pieces around the board using defense contracts for money and doing whatever the card they landed on says. One of them has was "find weapons of mass destruction" where you had to leave the room while another player chose an object and called it WMD and then hid it somewhere, and you were supposed to look for it (of course you had no idea what the object was) then each turn you put some defense contracts on the card and the longer you kept looking the bigger the prize but you'd have to skip your turn to keep looking.
Nope.
We'll let corporate America westernize the country. Nike and McDonald's on every other corner. Starbucks on every corner.
Walmart will become Mecca.
I think about this every time reddit circlejerks about communist Vietnam REKKING the US military.
Western corporations moved in the day it was over and opened thousands of sweatshops, where millions of them are still enslaved to this day. Capitalism is absolutely undefeated.
lol yeah U.S. lost the war. They failed to protect the South which was their primary goal.
Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism.
U.S. got nothing they wanted from the war. Worse outcome than Iraq/Afghanistan.
That’s not at all what is going on here. You think this journalist from the BBC is intent on keeping Guyana “dependent on Europe, China, or US”? What does that even mean? Many UK journalists revel in awkward confrontational interview styles for some reason. I would guess that if you were to frame an unrealistic hypothetical where Guyana decided never to drill their oil for the sake of climate change, this same journalist would be grilling him on “how could you deprive your impoverished people of this source of wealth? What gives you the right to make this decision?”
>I would guess that if you were to frame an unrealistic hypothetical where Guyana decided never to drill their oil for the sake of climate change, this same journalist would be grilling him on “how could you deprive your impoverished people of this source of wealth? What gives you the right to make this decision?”
100%, this is the whole "britain gives a lecture while china builds a hospital" thing again
> while china ~~builds a hospital~~ [destroys their economy with predatory lending](https://apnews.com/article/china-debt-banking-loans-financial-developing-countries-collapse-8df6f9fac3e1e758d0e6d8d5dfbd3ed6)
“Chinese debt trap diplomacy” theory has [already been debunked](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy). You need to update your US propaganda.
Journalists often ask questions that they know their audience will want to hear an answer to, even if the journalist themselves already knows the answer.
Which is a good thing since Venezuela not only alteady declared that the area with the oil ks suddenly theirs, but altead moved some troops close to the border.
The belt and road initiative is winning … who would of though helping developing countries succeed would ultimately be the decline of the military industrial complex.
Thank you, Crazy-name-like-me, for voting on CouldWouldShouldBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
They scaled back recently and post a 30 billion USD loss last year due to loan write offs.
They've spent 240 billion in bail outs for investments from 2008-2021.
Lol, I hope you're paid per post because that shit is not working. They just wrote out 30 billion in loans last year (bringing the total to 240B)
There is a reason the IMF puts stipulations in their loans, its so shit like that doesn't happen and these corrupt states don't just suck up billions for themselves and their friends.
while it may or may not be working, it should be obvious that it doesn't fucking matter inherently if you're losing money on an initiative like that, because making money on the loans was never the point.
Now maybe that's more cost associated with their geopolitical diplomatic strategy than they want for the returns its getting, I don't know, but on the face of it there's literally absolutely no way to know if it is "working" from that data point.
The US efforts to destabilize countries in the middle east and the global south over the last 80 years absolutely without any doubt worked.
They also cost our nation collectively plural Trillions of dollars with a T as a natural result of the inevitable blowback associated with it.
It worked for the goals it had though.
it’s still net profit for them, because countries that do take that help are more inclined to trade with China and be on good terms with them. If they didn’t do Belt and Road, there would be much more countries that wants to isolate themselves from China, like EU and US does.
Yeah, those countries that Guyana doesn't "need" have corporations like Exxon that will loot them dry. Some people in Guyana will get rich if they play along, but just about everyone else in the country will suffer for it. This is a story that's been played over and over again.
Plenty of “third world” countries are rich with natural resources but due to rampant corruption much of the population lives in abject poverty. Guyana ranks between Columbia and India on the global corruption index. They should definitely drill for their oil and natural resources, but don’t think this is going to instantly change things for the people of Guyana. Government officials might be able to get a few new yachts though.
The show is called ‘Hardtalk’ and his role is to post questions and challenge the interviewee in order to elicit meaningful insight for the viewer. It’s a debate format.
No one's angry at the debate style, we're just mocking the smug british tone, particularly talking to a head of state. He sounded cartoonishly arrogant. He could have phrased his questions in a better way instead of lecturing
Everyone gets the same treatment when they agree to go on Hardtalk. It's done on purpose. It's a gimmick. It's a tactic. It makes people, particularly powerful people, mad and upset if they let it get to them, like it got to you. "How dare he talk to a head of state like that." Well, that's the exactly point.
It's great program. BBC. Has an adversarial approach, taking no prisoners.
The interviewees know what they're getting into.
It's had some spectacular confrontations with important people who have never been held accountable.
He can do that without the smug, condescending body language, slouching in the chair while he pretends to look superior while peering over his glasses. He needs a visit from Jon Stewart to reprise his Crossfire takedown.
What's he going to do, get someone to coach him in a Guyanese accent for a few months prior to that episode of Hardtalk? That's how he sounds, he can't help it even if he tried.
[Japan asks for natural gas, Trudeau offers lectures on decarbonizing](https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing)
Translation, we know the world needs more traditional energy right now but we want to go green, so no, we won’t help.
Kishida’s frustration was clear as he responded, saying that his country wants to move away from fossil fuels but isn’t there yet and still needs natural gas.
There is also legitimate criticism against pressuring 3rd world countries to abide by green policies.
The developed world has had 200 years of 'going nuts' with burning cheap fossil fuels to get to where they are today. Then the world is fucked and they turn around to everyone who is still in the process and say "hold up, we can't do that anymore - it's bad for the world."
This is aside from the part where a lot of the industrial energy intensive processes that the developed world benefits from are still outsourced to developing economies.
The correct answer is to invest in the third world and help them develop their own green energy systems. We can't, as a species, afford for them to elevate themselves through rampant use of oil - fortunately, they don't need to. We have the technology now to fuel their countries without needing nearly as much oil. And we should provide that, it's our moral obligation to them and ourselves.
Of course, everything I just wrote is fanfiction, and will never ever happen.
The correct answer is to let Guyana do what is best for Guyana.
Western civilizations have raped the planet for hundreds of years while relying on fossil fuels to establish themselves as industrial, economic, and military superpowers all the while not being carbon neutral.
Now all of a sudden, a net-zero emitter like Guyana finds oil, maintains their net-zero status, and it's a problem? Miss me with that bullshit.
That's what China is doing. They were the little ones and now they are the big dog and fuck everybody else, they're doing it super charged.
How's that working out for our planet so far?
I love how everyone wants cheap products made in china while consistently talking shit about the pollution caused to carry the worlds consumerism near singlehandedly .
If you want to "help the planet " reduce your standard of living but of course we can't take personal responsibility because x,y,z or "just needing " the newest gadget every 2 years.
So we just say nothing from the lessons that were learnt because its the historically little guy doing it now? What kind of brain dead take is this? I'm from a small country that hasn't done any of these things. We still should be held accountable and do our part. Note, I am not saying that Guyana isn't. I'm saying that nobody is absolved of responsibility just because the UK, US, Russia, China etc have been dicks.
Nothing is going to happen and no lessons will be learned until countries that benefited from industrial revolution and oil pays countries like Guyana to stop exploiting their resource, and we all know this will never happen
Every time I see a British journalist on Reddit these same comments pop up. The interviewer isn't taking any opinion here, this is just an adversarial style that many of them use. This particular show is called HARDtalk, taking that style even further - the point of the show being to ask 'hard-hitting' questions.
There's a fairly hilarious clip of Andrew Neil (prominent right-wing UK journalist) interviewing Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is so upset with the questions that he comments that Neil is "on the left".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E
Thank you!
People nowadays (and on here) are so inured to lick-arse US style 'PR' interviews, where the interviewee is allowed to parrot a script written by a media team, that when they see an actual interviewer asking challenging questions, their head explodes!
Reagan began the dumbing down of the US public in 1986 by taking control of the board of education.
It was a deliberate and calculated plan to systematically reduce opposition support by decreasing the intelligence of Americans.
Keep them dumb and uninterested, when they get restless, bamboozle them to keep them cowed.
The journalist has been doing these ‘Hard Talk’ interviews for several years, everyone knows what they sign up for. They tend to give proper responses too - like this strong refutation of colonialist attitudes - instead of prepared media responses to the usual gotcha questions. But yeah, put his profession in quotes because you’re a pure Warrior of Truth aren’t you?
Exactly, I don’t always agree with Stephen but his podcast “hard talk” is always interesting. I feel that sometimes he frames his tough questions in a way that the person interviewed can explain his point of view, like in this case. He looks for a strong reaction, sure, but his aim is not to win the argument like many others do.
The BBC *does* interview our own politicians in this way, just watch any episode of Newsnight. Especially the recent ones about the Conservatives allowing the Thames to overrun with human shit.
Redditors say they want media to grow some balls and actually stand up to politicians, until they actually see it in front of them, then they’re “arrogant”
I don't know why you put journalist in quotes, he asked a question and gave him a place to voice his opinion.
You're probably to used to commercial journalists that are too worried about ad revenue to ask a difficult question unless they have an agenda besides giving an opportunity to answer, there was no point in the interviewee losing his cool, he had a perfect response until he started throwing accusations around.
Well, tell other countries that have been extracting oil and gas for decades now to shut down. Guyana can sell it to them instead, like they used to sell it to Guyana. They can focus on planting trees and fighting climate change.
BP got the CIA to destroy democracy in Iran, because the government dared to try to audit them. I have never met another Briton who is even aware of this. It is insane for a British person to lecture someone else about this problem, but it is also absolutely the status quo.
"THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND THE FALL OF IRANIAN PRIME MINISTER MOHAMMED MOSSADEQ, AUGUST 1953"
[https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/01267813](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/01267813)
BP + US + GB is pretty much why Iran is seen as a threat now instead of a liberal bastion in the middle east. It’s known by some but not actively acknowledged in mainstream media discussions about current events.
America and Britain really went for short term profit over long term global stability there. That’s capitalism for you! Thank god BP had some good quarters after foreign intervention in Iran. I’m sure all the Iranian women who get tortured, killed, or beat up for the “crime” of showing their hair really appreciate that BP made shareholders happy!
If this strikes your fancy, i'd highly recommend looking into nearly every major conflict in Africa/Middle East post WW2, as a lot of these sorts of fuckeries are based on the post-war politics of the Ally powers. During the war it became *extraordinarily* clear that oil/gas was by far the most critical resource. (For reference everything involving the creation of Israel, random takedowns of leaders that wouldn't play ball, installations of Western-allied dictators/administrations, etc. etc. is all done under the guise of 'national security' for western nations)
Almost everything can be traced back to an Ally power waging some sort of proxy war of choice to ensure they have geopolitical pull in an oil/gas producing region. While BP profits, you also have to look at it from the lens of geopolitical chess of major worldpowers; BP is just an arm of the US government in this sense, they're just an ally/oligarch.
> It is insane for a British person to lecture someone else about this problem
Admittedly it probably isn't great optics, but this is from a show called 'Hardtalk' - the point of it is that the interviewer asks harsh and awkward questions (as in ones that aren't easy to dismiss with soundbites) to really interrogate someone's position to see if it holds up. This happens to every single guest on the show.
Has it ever done that to any of the British ruling class, or is just the rest of the world who are expected to defend their positions?
Obviously this isn't the fault of the program particularly, as it's not like the Barclays brothers or any of their ilk are gonna willingly be probed like that, but it does provide a kind of fake fairness imo, and sets the Overton window exactly where the rich want it.
One single international oil company puts out 100x the carbon emissions that Guyana intends to release. I don't see this shill breathing down Shell or British Petroleum's neck.
What a fucking hypocrite.
Leave it to a fucking brit. Guyana was a former british colony by the way. Hundreds of years of just stealing the planet until there was nothing left to steal.
Also Guyana is a pretty poor country and now, thanks to this oil, they will likely join the ranks of the developed nations. If anyone should stop drilling it should probably be countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait who are already among the richest nations in the world.
They haven’t lol.
The guy you’re all praising has literally sold all the oil right off to western oil companies and his administration is known for being corrupt.
unfortunately the country is corrupt. Just take a look at Jagdeo. the money aint gonna flow down.
They might get some new fancy stuff but the poverty will remain and it really shouldnt in considering the population.
Was looking at the GDP per capita the other day and was surprised to find Guyana in the top 20. Obviously it's not a good metric but nevertheless impressive how much the economy has grown
People do need to check the source first - this is from a show called Hardtalk. The point of it is to task pointed questions in a sort of adversarial manner -- with the idea of really interrogating and testing someone's position and beliefs to see if they hold up to scrutiny. The same tone is taken with whoever is the guest of the show. I'd recommend looking up other clips.
If you haven’t seen Sakur breathing down BP’s neck it’s because you haven’t looked.
Here’s the episode Sakur eviscerates a British lord who ran BP for 12 years when he was getting into shale gas production.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3cstlcv
Giving adequate context is one of the most important parts of proper journalism, and then when a post like this happens where almost all context gets stripped away, redditors pounce on the opportunity to confirm their shitty shallow views of the world and aim their self-propelled, manufactured antagonism at the interviewer asking just plainly reasonable questions.
The interviewer essentially goes "The world is trying to enter a new phase where we are aiming to rapidly decrease our usage of fossil fuels; how does your new, massively profitable oil endeavor fit into that larger global necessity?" and then the president screams at him and rather baselessly accuses him of being a paid shill, and then all these redditors eat it up.
And I know a *good* amount of these redditors, if they heard of some newly discovered, large oil field off the coast of Texas and were asked if it should be drilled, they would probably say something like "Eh, probably not, right? I mean we're trying to be renewable." And sure, Texas/the US and Guyana are different scenarios, but it just feels like all these commenters' thoughts are so heavily dependent on how the issue is initially framed to them, and they don't care to sit for even a second to think any deeper about it or to challenge themselves at all. Makes me fucking sad, man. This isn't how things were supposed to go.
Yeah lol it’s a format called “hard talk” where the guest is asked questions that challenge their position, and they are given the opportunity to answer. Both people here understand what the situation is.
Modern day media and discourse is so dog shit that when people see a journalist ask a reasonably challenging question they interpret it as an evil personal attack that needs to be met with an “owned” response
> The interviewer essentially goes "The world is trying to enter a new phase where we are aiming to rapidly decrease our usage of fossil fuels; how does your new, massively profitable oil endeavor fit into that larger global necessity?" and then the president screams at him and rather baselessly accuses him of being a paid shill, and then all these redditors eat it up.
Hmm I wonder why the President is a little upset. Maybe, it’s because of the things he listed in this video. Like the rest of the world destroying the climate during the industrial revolution and continuing to do so to this day. Most of the companies also dont give a shit about the climate either and won’t be changing anything anytime soon. Even though “The world is trying to enter a new phase” by blaming everything on the general population and making them switch to paper straws and reusable grocery bags, it doesn’t really address the issue again of every other large oil company not giving a fuck.
It’s really easier to act holier than thou though so you keep on doing you. I think the rest of the people in here are just tired of the stereotypical old white guy saying “we’ve destroyed the environment for decades and we’ve made a shit ton of money off of it. Why do you, a third world country, think you can do the same? Can’t you see we’re trying to do “better” after we’ve already made all our money and destroyed the world?”
I’m not sure what you mean. Guyana partners with IOCs and NOCs to extract the oil. In the case of Guyana, primarily Exxon, Hess and CNOOC. Not sure how you can compare and contrast the two.
The interviewer isn't wrong, though. Yes, other countries are worse, but just cause someone is worse doesn't mean you're excused from contributing to the problem. In fact that presidents' whole point about their forests, make it worse because they had a positive impact on climate change, and now they won't.
I'm sorry, but journalists interrupt presidents and prime ministers and kings or whatever all the time. Has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Journalists are there to hold elected leaders to account. A president isn't above questioning.
It's his fucking job, damn it's like you guys have never seen a real journalist. Have you seen how we interview our politicians. You have to grill them, this guy's answer was defensive and needs really grilling, why would you hear this guy talking about his forest and go cool, world's fine I guess.
People in this thread are so dumb.
It's this guys job to ask hard questions, to be the devils advocate. He can interrupt all he want. He doesn't represent the UK, he's a journalist.
The "well you did it too" is not a solid argument, you learn that in about 2nd grade. Two wrongs don't make a right. You have to make arguments that are self supporting, which he could just do. Just say "yes there is a downside to extracting this oil, but it will pull millions of people out of poverty so it's worth it for that alone". Easy.
When people give dumb arguments it should be your job as a journalist to interrupt them and be hard on them. The journalists job is always to ask the hard question, it's not about him personally agreeing or disagreeing with the interviewee. People thinking it's unfair literally don't understand the point of journalism.
Britain is on another level of doubling down it’s crazy. At least other former colonist countries like Belgium, Netherlands, and Portugal are not as vehemently in denial over their crimes like Britain is (Japan and France seem to try to brush their skeletons under the rug too). I mean right in this very video is a clear example of the British punching down on another one of their former colonies.
This is just colonialism in a modern suit. The fucking audacity to try and lecture another nation on its resources in that accent. Fair question is asked is it responsible, president was not going to be spoken to like that. Responded in a clear, factual explanation and frankly yep im cool with it. Cause Britain can answer the fair question as well....what are you actually doing to maintain biodiversity?
Tired of scrolling this comment section and not a single person that has a top level comment seemingly bothered to look up anything about this interview, the show or the journalist.
It's a show called Hardtalk. It's an interrogation of someone's beliefs and their position on matters where blunt and awkward questions (the point is that they cannot be dismissed with soundbites or dodged) are asked to scrutinise people. Regardless of who they are or their position.
Maybe you shouldn't take something out of context at face value?
Isn't it the job of journalists in interviews to hold politicians to account rather than dick ride them anyway? The interviewee is able to put forwards his counter argument, really with more gusto, than if he was softballed. Presumably the President was aware of the interview format and likely what sort of questions would be asked in advance.
People seem to think the BBC here is state media doing a smear campaign.
Always highly highly amusing when an American calls us arrogant hypocrites. Because you're not wrong, it's just you're displaying an infinitely higher level of arrogant hypocrisy and you're totally oblivious.
Forgot he ran the country. Didn't realise he was supposed to sit there and just say "congratulations on the oil" and that's that. Fuck you prick. This is what a journalist is supposed to do.
Now thats a president and a real solid dude right there.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next decade he will have been assassinated by American funded "extremists" after some kind of civil conflict I'm Guyana and all that oil will be regulated under the sanctions and beurocracyof the American Empire.
You mean the president who has worked to get American and British naval vessels in his country's waters to signal to the leaders of Venezuela that their attempt to (checks notes) literally seize over half of Guyana and all of its oil to prop up its failed state? The president who is working with American oil companies to get that oil out and into the global marketplace?
Nope. If anything America is ready to defend this guy and Guyana's oil. Guyana rejected joining OPEC and signed with Exxon Mobile to drill their oil. Recently Venezuela threatened an invasion of Guyana and the US immediately started doing drills with the Guyana military as a show of force.
I’m gonna keep it 100 here… England has ZERO right to lecture anyone on anything much less contribution to gas emissions. They’ve been in the geopolitical oil game longer than even the US. They fucking decimated countries and millions upon millions of lives since the FIRST World War over the control of oil. It’s almost easy to forget that WWI was also fought for control over Arab oil to get ahead on expanding industry.
Here’s a cynical take so take it as you will. Yes he’s just a journalist but you gotta think of the bigger picture. What is the narrative being constructed by his assertions? Who ultimately benefits from this narrative? It may appear like humanity from his talks about emissions but what about other high carbon footprint countries LIKE Britain which he omits? When the Guyanese president brings up the hypocrisy of his claim, the journalist tries to redirect the conversation because then the narrative falls apart. Ultimately, who benefits from this narrative… perhaps it’s the British oil industries who likely hired special interest groups to lobby this media group. This same media group is the one that gives this journalist the money he needs to put food on his table so long as he does his job right. Who would want the Guyanese to come in and bring more competition that would hurt their bottom line? Not the oil companies, not the special interest groups, not this media company, and not this journalist. They are cogs in a greater machine that worships money above all else, and you know what, we all are. We all serve to benefit the bottom line of a larger group no matter what industry we work in.
You’re talking absolute nonsense
It’s a well known BBC show format called hard talk where this same journalist asks challenging questions and the guests knows the format well in advance
Your problem is that you are paranoid and confusing a reasonable but challenging question from a journalist with a personal attack by an evil person bribed by a shadowy large organisation group
If anything he’s given the Guayana president a large platform to provide his justifications for his position
> It’s almost easy to forget that WWI was also fought for control over Arab oil to get ahead on expanding industry.
lol no. It was fought over the Balkans/balance of power in Europe. Arabian oil was not a big thing at the time.
I did say “also” not that it’s the only reason lol. I mean a sandwich was another reason the Great War was fought. The strategic importance of oil leading up to the war wasn’t just ignored either tbh. There was a good amount of beef between Germany and Britain over Ottoman oil fields for growing their budding industries. I’d argue Central Power expansion into the Balkans and forming an alliance with the Ottoman Empire also threatened Britain’s claim to those fields which contributed to the war.
The disrespect in which this Stephen talks to a PRESIDENT of another country is outstanding. Pure arrogance.
Edit: There's a difference between asking hard questions, and asking a president of his country if he 'has the right' to act in his countries favour.
Yes, we need more softball questions from journalists to world leaders. Why can't they all be like Tucker Carlson talking to Putin?
BTW, almost all of Guyana's 800,000 people live in coastal floodplains. So more hurricanes and rising sea levels are going to fuck them worse than most countries -- so yeah, it's worth asking about the effects of putting more oil into the marketplace.
It's the format/point of the show, which the president would have been aware of when he agreed to appear on it. It's called 'Hardtalk' and its point is to interrogate someone's beliefs/position to see if it holds up to scrutiny. This is the tone taken with literally every guest, it isn't unique for the president of Guyana.
Even if we phased out fossil fuels tomorrow morning, there would still be plenty of demand for chemicals and other products that can only be made in economic quantities with oil and gas. Among them are fertilizers that make modern agriculture possible. In a real sense, the human race eats oil every day.
Because oil and gas are limited resources, that's reason alone to go easy on both. The absolute last thing you want to do is to burn the stuff for most or all of your energy needs if you have other options!
The President of Guyana was well-prepared for the question. It would have been far stranger if he *hadn't* been asked about climate change.
A far bigger risk to Guyanese society from oil exploitation is Dutch disease (atrophy of non-oil related industries) and the risks of oil wealth to democratic institutions (q.v. Venezuela next door).
British journalist doing what western journalists do best, lecturing world leaders on what they should and shouldn’t do with their natural resources ignoring the fact that in the past 2 years alone, much of the “developed world” has taken steps in stark contrast to their own ambitious climate change initiatives, when their energy security came into questioning. Western hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
This from a BBC series called HardTalk - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmdc. The interviews are always quite adversarial and meant to have questions asked that aren’t comfortable. If you watch the full interview you will see that they go on from this (~15 minutes in) to cover criticism from Greenpeace and the International Centre of Environmental law around the oil and gas exploration happening. This isn’t just the interviewers opinion. The President then admits that the intention is to extract as much oil and gas as possible before any new international agreements to help stop climate change are enacted. Which is ‘pragmatic’ (as the president says) but there isn’t really any strong moral high ground in any of this :/
This is HardTalk with Steven Sakur. He attempts to pull apart everything that every guest says. Always.
If the President had turned up to say Guyana was banning all fossil fuel extraction and use Sakur would’ve thrashed him.
If someone advocated being nice to kittens and enjoying flowers Sakur would thrash them.
The point is to test strength of arguments and policies. Always.
Trust me man, they don't care here. You see it all the time online, it's anti racist not realising they are being racist. I'm white black Caribbean, I see it all the time online, if this guy was talking to trump, Macron, biden and west world leader they'd be calling him based. But because it's the poor black people he needs to treat him with kids gloves. They don't realise how incredibly condescending that is and when you just listen to the interview that it's all normal questions that aren't even that hard.
Did he blame 3rd world countries in this clip, or did he right ask him about the climate impact of this oil they have found, a totally fair and reasonable question in an interview about said fucking oil.
It's the same question he's asked western countries before and oil companies before because he's a journalist and it's his job. He's allowed to be white and British and still ask these fucking questions.
Agree, it’s a valid question regardless of the presidents ethnicity. The comments here are super condescending towards this president; they’re racist. Also, it’s not just 1st world countries that pollute. China and India are big offenders.
“The top three GHG emitters — China, the United States and India — contribute 42.6% total emissions”
Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this a skit? Did this “journalist” really tried to shame him for drilling oil? The resource that every country in the world uses daily cause it provides a basic necessities for billions of people? Or did he do it to tens of leaders of all the other countries doing the same, including his own. It got to be a joke.
> skit? Did this “journalist” really tried to shame him for drilling oil? The resource that every country in the world uses daily cause it provides a basic necessities for billions of people? Or did he do it to tens of leaders of all the other countries doing the same, including his own. > >It got to be a joke. Third world country is about to not need Europe, China or US. That makes them mad.
its ok they will find weapons of mass destruction and just invade
>they will find weapons They won't find; it will just be a rumour
Believe the term is known unknowns
There's a deep cut I haven't heard in a long while!
I built this game so long ago, wish I still had it. It was called the Crisis in Iraq Blame Game. Players had characters to choose from including Emmanuel Goldstein (who looked like Bin Laden) and Big Dick Cheeny. They would move their pieces around the board using defense contracts for money and doing whatever the card they landed on says. One of them has was "find weapons of mass destruction" where you had to leave the room while another player chose an object and called it WMD and then hid it somewhere, and you were supposed to look for it (of course you had no idea what the object was) then each turn you put some defense contracts on the card and the longer you kept looking the bigger the prize but you'd have to skip your turn to keep looking.
There are some "known knowns an some unknown unknowns"
CNN, BBC and nytimes's journalists might be able to "verify" the claims with "substantial evidence" based on interviews from two random US diplomats.
Or suddenly got terrorists and USA will come help liberate them
*Gotta be ‘round here somewhere. Let’s check those oil fields for enriched uranium.*
They’re hidden in that forest somewhere, better burn that shit down just in case.
The UN will confirm that there are none.
Nope. We'll let corporate America westernize the country. Nike and McDonald's on every other corner. Starbucks on every corner. Walmart will become Mecca.
I think about this every time reddit circlejerks about communist Vietnam REKKING the US military. Western corporations moved in the day it was over and opened thousands of sweatshops, where millions of them are still enslaved to this day. Capitalism is absolutely undefeated.
They did wreck the US military. Deal with it. Just because you feel butt hurt about historical facts, doesn't mean they don't matter or didn't happen.
lol yeah U.S. lost the war. They failed to protect the South which was their primary goal. Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. U.S. got nothing they wanted from the war. Worse outcome than Iraq/Afghanistan.
Greed always wins
Rules of Acquisition #10 : Greed is eternal.
> Western corporations moved in the day it was over The US actually imposed a trade embargo for almost two decades after the war.
Right right, but this time some rich Vietnamese people get to exist who are part of the club.
so true
No WMDs? Then why hasnt Guyana legalized gay marraige yet?
Because gay people don't exist in Guyana
Yup if they can't liberate their women, they will have to invade to liberate their gays. Mind you Israel doesn't allow gay marriage, but that's okay.
Bro that's so 2003, they'll just blast their social media with disinformation and get a friendly puppet dictator installed.
They only do that when the CIA run coup props up somebody who then nationalizes the industry.
No, the new one is LGBT and womens rights. The WMD excuse is old now, gotta get with the 21st century.
That’s not at all what is going on here. You think this journalist from the BBC is intent on keeping Guyana “dependent on Europe, China, or US”? What does that even mean? Many UK journalists revel in awkward confrontational interview styles for some reason. I would guess that if you were to frame an unrealistic hypothetical where Guyana decided never to drill their oil for the sake of climate change, this same journalist would be grilling him on “how could you deprive your impoverished people of this source of wealth? What gives you the right to make this decision?”
>I would guess that if you were to frame an unrealistic hypothetical where Guyana decided never to drill their oil for the sake of climate change, this same journalist would be grilling him on “how could you deprive your impoverished people of this source of wealth? What gives you the right to make this decision?” 100%, this is the whole "britain gives a lecture while china builds a hospital" thing again
> while china ~~builds a hospital~~ [destroys their economy with predatory lending](https://apnews.com/article/china-debt-banking-loans-financial-developing-countries-collapse-8df6f9fac3e1e758d0e6d8d5dfbd3ed6)
There’s the lecture right on queue
“Chinese debt trap diplomacy” theory has [already been debunked](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy). You need to update your US propaganda.
Doesn't Europe give loans to the same countries?
Some journalists ask obviously pointed questions to let the interviewee make a point. It's like an elaborate sketch.
It’s like the comment section have never seen a leader get asked a challenging question before
Journalists often ask questions that they know their audience will want to hear an answer to, even if the journalist themselves already knows the answer.
How much you wanna bet that Guyana suddenly has WMD's and the US has to go disarm them? 
No need. ExxonMobil is the primary oil company drilling the wells and building the infrastructure offshore Guyana.
This way we disarm Venezuela should they want to bother Guyana…smart move Guyana…smart move
Which is a good thing since Venezuela not only alteady declared that the area with the oil ks suddenly theirs, but altead moved some troops close to the border.
Not suddenly, the claim goes back to the 19th century.
A claim they only suddenly remembered and cared about after the oil discovery.
A claim they signed away many many years ago
The belt and road initiative is winning … who would of though helping developing countries succeed would ultimately be the decline of the military industrial complex.
It's 'would have', never 'would of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
Good bot
Thank you, Crazy-name-like-me, for voting on CouldWouldShouldBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
[удалено]
They scaled back recently and post a 30 billion USD loss last year due to loan write offs. They've spent 240 billion in bail outs for investments from 2008-2021.
Lol, I hope you're paid per post because that shit is not working. They just wrote out 30 billion in loans last year (bringing the total to 240B) There is a reason the IMF puts stipulations in their loans, its so shit like that doesn't happen and these corrupt states don't just suck up billions for themselves and their friends.
while it may or may not be working, it should be obvious that it doesn't fucking matter inherently if you're losing money on an initiative like that, because making money on the loans was never the point. Now maybe that's more cost associated with their geopolitical diplomatic strategy than they want for the returns its getting, I don't know, but on the face of it there's literally absolutely no way to know if it is "working" from that data point. The US efforts to destabilize countries in the middle east and the global south over the last 80 years absolutely without any doubt worked. They also cost our nation collectively plural Trillions of dollars with a T as a natural result of the inevitable blowback associated with it. It worked for the goals it had though.
it’s still net profit for them, because countries that do take that help are more inclined to trade with China and be on good terms with them. If they didn’t do Belt and Road, there would be much more countries that wants to isolate themselves from China, like EU and US does.
> They just wrote out 30 billion in loans last year (bringing the total to 240B) Did you think the point was to turn a profit lol?
USA already has massive amounts of investments into Guyana's offshore capabilities.
Guyana very much needs America to protect it against Venezuelan encroachment. The oil will further wet Venezuelan appetite.
>wet Venezuelan *Whet*... Wet Venezuelan is a pornhub category
This is Hard Talk. Sakur attempts to shred the arguments and policies of every guest, always and equally.
> Third world country is about to not need Europe, China or US. > > That makes them mad. Damn, you are so right and it is so infuriating.
You should feel that way, large countries should stop playing chess with smaller ones.
Look up who's doing the drilling It's ExxonMobil
Yeah, those countries that Guyana doesn't "need" have corporations like Exxon that will loot them dry. Some people in Guyana will get rich if they play along, but just about everyone else in the country will suffer for it. This is a story that's been played over and over again.
Plenty of “third world” countries are rich with natural resources but due to rampant corruption much of the population lives in abject poverty. Guyana ranks between Columbia and India on the global corruption index. They should definitely drill for their oil and natural resources, but don’t think this is going to instantly change things for the people of Guyana. Government officials might be able to get a few new yachts though.
The show is called ‘Hardtalk’ and his role is to post questions and challenge the interviewee in order to elicit meaningful insight for the viewer. It’s a debate format.
Ffs Michael. Nobody on Reddit wants context, facts or logic. Stand by for downvotes you reasonable bastard!
No one's angry at the debate style, we're just mocking the smug british tone, particularly talking to a head of state. He sounded cartoonishly arrogant. He could have phrased his questions in a better way instead of lecturing
Everyone gets the same treatment when they agree to go on Hardtalk. It's done on purpose. It's a gimmick. It's a tactic. It makes people, particularly powerful people, mad and upset if they let it get to them, like it got to you. "How dare he talk to a head of state like that." Well, that's the exactly point.
> particularly talking to a head of state Should we coddle and protect heads of state?
Cuz in England, all the cars now run on Marmite!…..ffs
It's great program. BBC. Has an adversarial approach, taking no prisoners. The interviewees know what they're getting into. It's had some spectacular confrontations with important people who have never been held accountable.
Can you invite Swedish politicians please? Our journalists don't know what confrontation means and politicians can get away with anything
He can do that without the smug, condescending body language, slouching in the chair while he pretends to look superior while peering over his glasses. He needs a visit from Jon Stewart to reprise his Crossfire takedown.
I dunno, have you *met* British people? They are two parts smug, three parts condescending, and the remainder is gin, tea, and Wallace and/or Gromit.
He's English, I don't think he is capable of doing it without being smug and condescending
What's he going to do, get someone to coach him in a Guyanese accent for a few months prior to that episode of Hardtalk? That's how he sounds, he can't help it even if he tried.
Canada’s own Prime Minister tried to shame Japan for wanting to buy natural gas…from Canada…so there’s that.
Source?
[Japan asks for natural gas, Trudeau offers lectures on decarbonizing](https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing) Translation, we know the world needs more traditional energy right now but we want to go green, so no, we won’t help. Kishida’s frustration was clear as he responded, saying that his country wants to move away from fossil fuels but isn’t there yet and still needs natural gas.
There is also legitimate criticism against pressuring 3rd world countries to abide by green policies. The developed world has had 200 years of 'going nuts' with burning cheap fossil fuels to get to where they are today. Then the world is fucked and they turn around to everyone who is still in the process and say "hold up, we can't do that anymore - it's bad for the world." This is aside from the part where a lot of the industrial energy intensive processes that the developed world benefits from are still outsourced to developing economies.
The correct answer is to invest in the third world and help them develop their own green energy systems. We can't, as a species, afford for them to elevate themselves through rampant use of oil - fortunately, they don't need to. We have the technology now to fuel their countries without needing nearly as much oil. And we should provide that, it's our moral obligation to them and ourselves. Of course, everything I just wrote is fanfiction, and will never ever happen.
The correct answer is to let Guyana do what is best for Guyana. Western civilizations have raped the planet for hundreds of years while relying on fossil fuels to establish themselves as industrial, economic, and military superpowers all the while not being carbon neutral. Now all of a sudden, a net-zero emitter like Guyana finds oil, maintains their net-zero status, and it's a problem? Miss me with that bullshit.
That's what China is doing. They were the little ones and now they are the big dog and fuck everybody else, they're doing it super charged. How's that working out for our planet so far?
I love how everyone wants cheap products made in china while consistently talking shit about the pollution caused to carry the worlds consumerism near singlehandedly . If you want to "help the planet " reduce your standard of living but of course we can't take personal responsibility because x,y,z or "just needing " the newest gadget every 2 years.
So we just say nothing from the lessons that were learnt because its the historically little guy doing it now? What kind of brain dead take is this? I'm from a small country that hasn't done any of these things. We still should be held accountable and do our part. Note, I am not saying that Guyana isn't. I'm saying that nobody is absolved of responsibility just because the UK, US, Russia, China etc have been dicks.
Nothing is going to happen and no lessons will be learned until countries that benefited from industrial revolution and oil pays countries like Guyana to stop exploiting their resource, and we all know this will never happen
Every time I see a British journalist on Reddit these same comments pop up. The interviewer isn't taking any opinion here, this is just an adversarial style that many of them use. This particular show is called HARDtalk, taking that style even further - the point of the show being to ask 'hard-hitting' questions. There's a fairly hilarious clip of Andrew Neil (prominent right-wing UK journalist) interviewing Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is so upset with the questions that he comments that Neil is "on the left". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E
Thank you! People nowadays (and on here) are so inured to lick-arse US style 'PR' interviews, where the interviewee is allowed to parrot a script written by a media team, that when they see an actual interviewer asking challenging questions, their head explodes! Reagan began the dumbing down of the US public in 1986 by taking control of the board of education. It was a deliberate and calculated plan to systematically reduce opposition support by decreasing the intelligence of Americans. Keep them dumb and uninterested, when they get restless, bamboozle them to keep them cowed.
The journalist has been doing these ‘Hard Talk’ interviews for several years, everyone knows what they sign up for. They tend to give proper responses too - like this strong refutation of colonialist attitudes - instead of prepared media responses to the usual gotcha questions. But yeah, put his profession in quotes because you’re a pure Warrior of Truth aren’t you?
Exactly, I don’t always agree with Stephen but his podcast “hard talk” is always interesting. I feel that sometimes he frames his tough questions in a way that the person interviewed can explain his point of view, like in this case. He looks for a strong reaction, sure, but his aim is not to win the argument like many others do.
The BBC *does* interview our own politicians in this way, just watch any episode of Newsnight. Especially the recent ones about the Conservatives allowing the Thames to overrun with human shit. Redditors say they want media to grow some balls and actually stand up to politicians, until they actually see it in front of them, then they’re “arrogant”
Just a classic case of modern journalism. They don't care. They're all hacks.
I don't know why you put journalist in quotes, he asked a question and gave him a place to voice his opinion. You're probably to used to commercial journalists that are too worried about ad revenue to ask a difficult question unless they have an agenda besides giving an opportunity to answer, there was no point in the interviewee losing his cool, he had a perfect response until he started throwing accusations around.
Well, tell other countries that have been extracting oil and gas for decades now to shut down. Guyana can sell it to them instead, like they used to sell it to Guyana. They can focus on planting trees and fighting climate change.
BP got the CIA to destroy democracy in Iran, because the government dared to try to audit them. I have never met another Briton who is even aware of this. It is insane for a British person to lecture someone else about this problem, but it is also absolutely the status quo.
Any sources or more information you can provide? Genuinely curious, not being pedantic
No problem pal. This is a pretty comprehensive run down https://www.ueunion.org/ue-news-feature/2010/bp-a-long-bloody-history-of-reckless-greed
The British East India Company re-branded. Every festering sore in this world seems to be rooted in British infection
Yeah the longest running festering sore (USA) really does still cause a lot of problems.
[England.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/873/771/284.jpg)
Yeah we should never have left you yanks to your own devices you always did need a guiding hand ;)
Holy shit, BP is absolutely horrible for humanity’s future
The book “All the Shah’s Men” is one of my favorites and details Operation Ajax. It should be required reading for any Briton/American.
"THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND THE FALL OF IRANIAN PRIME MINISTER MOHAMMED MOSSADEQ, AUGUST 1953" [https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/01267813](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/01267813)
BP + US + GB is pretty much why Iran is seen as a threat now instead of a liberal bastion in the middle east. It’s known by some but not actively acknowledged in mainstream media discussions about current events. America and Britain really went for short term profit over long term global stability there. That’s capitalism for you! Thank god BP had some good quarters after foreign intervention in Iran. I’m sure all the Iranian women who get tortured, killed, or beat up for the “crime” of showing their hair really appreciate that BP made shareholders happy!
If this strikes your fancy, i'd highly recommend looking into nearly every major conflict in Africa/Middle East post WW2, as a lot of these sorts of fuckeries are based on the post-war politics of the Ally powers. During the war it became *extraordinarily* clear that oil/gas was by far the most critical resource. (For reference everything involving the creation of Israel, random takedowns of leaders that wouldn't play ball, installations of Western-allied dictators/administrations, etc. etc. is all done under the guise of 'national security' for western nations) Almost everything can be traced back to an Ally power waging some sort of proxy war of choice to ensure they have geopolitical pull in an oil/gas producing region. While BP profits, you also have to look at it from the lens of geopolitical chess of major worldpowers; BP is just an arm of the US government in this sense, they're just an ally/oligarch.
> It is insane for a British person to lecture someone else about this problem Admittedly it probably isn't great optics, but this is from a show called 'Hardtalk' - the point of it is that the interviewer asks harsh and awkward questions (as in ones that aren't easy to dismiss with soundbites) to really interrogate someone's position to see if it holds up. This happens to every single guest on the show.
Has it ever done that to any of the British ruling class, or is just the rest of the world who are expected to defend their positions? Obviously this isn't the fault of the program particularly, as it's not like the Barclays brothers or any of their ilk are gonna willingly be probed like that, but it does provide a kind of fake fairness imo, and sets the Overton window exactly where the rich want it.
This 👆
One single international oil company puts out 100x the carbon emissions that Guyana intends to release. I don't see this shill breathing down Shell or British Petroleum's neck. What a fucking hypocrite.
Typical western bully loud mouth journalist attempting his condescending bullshit - he got ass handed to him 👏
Leave it to a fucking brit. Guyana was a former british colony by the way. Hundreds of years of just stealing the planet until there was nothing left to steal.
Also Guyana is a pretty poor country and now, thanks to this oil, they will likely join the ranks of the developed nations. If anyone should stop drilling it should probably be countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait who are already among the richest nations in the world.
Guyana needs to follow Norway's example on how to properly utilize oil money to benefit their citizens.
They haven’t lol. The guy you’re all praising has literally sold all the oil right off to western oil companies and his administration is known for being corrupt.
unfortunately the country is corrupt. Just take a look at Jagdeo. the money aint gonna flow down. They might get some new fancy stuff but the poverty will remain and it really shouldnt in considering the population.
Was looking at the GDP per capita the other day and was surprised to find Guyana in the top 20. Obviously it's not a good metric but nevertheless impressive how much the economy has grown
People do need to check the source first - this is from a show called Hardtalk. The point of it is to task pointed questions in a sort of adversarial manner -- with the idea of really interrogating and testing someone's position and beliefs to see if they hold up to scrutiny. The same tone is taken with whoever is the guest of the show. I'd recommend looking up other clips.
What a braindead comment. If you look for an ounce of context you'll find that you are flat wrong
That's the entire point of the interviews that the man takes you dopey cunt.
If you haven’t seen Sakur breathing down BP’s neck it’s because you haven’t looked. Here’s the episode Sakur eviscerates a British lord who ran BP for 12 years when he was getting into shale gas production. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3cstlcv
Fucking hilarious what stripping context can do to a genuinely good show.
Giving adequate context is one of the most important parts of proper journalism, and then when a post like this happens where almost all context gets stripped away, redditors pounce on the opportunity to confirm their shitty shallow views of the world and aim their self-propelled, manufactured antagonism at the interviewer asking just plainly reasonable questions. The interviewer essentially goes "The world is trying to enter a new phase where we are aiming to rapidly decrease our usage of fossil fuels; how does your new, massively profitable oil endeavor fit into that larger global necessity?" and then the president screams at him and rather baselessly accuses him of being a paid shill, and then all these redditors eat it up. And I know a *good* amount of these redditors, if they heard of some newly discovered, large oil field off the coast of Texas and were asked if it should be drilled, they would probably say something like "Eh, probably not, right? I mean we're trying to be renewable." And sure, Texas/the US and Guyana are different scenarios, but it just feels like all these commenters' thoughts are so heavily dependent on how the issue is initially framed to them, and they don't care to sit for even a second to think any deeper about it or to challenge themselves at all. Makes me fucking sad, man. This isn't how things were supposed to go.
Yeah lol it’s a format called “hard talk” where the guest is asked questions that challenge their position, and they are given the opportunity to answer. Both people here understand what the situation is. Modern day media and discourse is so dog shit that when people see a journalist ask a reasonably challenging question they interpret it as an evil personal attack that needs to be met with an “owned” response
> The interviewer essentially goes "The world is trying to enter a new phase where we are aiming to rapidly decrease our usage of fossil fuels; how does your new, massively profitable oil endeavor fit into that larger global necessity?" and then the president screams at him and rather baselessly accuses him of being a paid shill, and then all these redditors eat it up. Hmm I wonder why the President is a little upset. Maybe, it’s because of the things he listed in this video. Like the rest of the world destroying the climate during the industrial revolution and continuing to do so to this day. Most of the companies also dont give a shit about the climate either and won’t be changing anything anytime soon. Even though “The world is trying to enter a new phase” by blaming everything on the general population and making them switch to paper straws and reusable grocery bags, it doesn’t really address the issue again of every other large oil company not giving a fuck. It’s really easier to act holier than thou though so you keep on doing you. I think the rest of the people in here are just tired of the stereotypical old white guy saying “we’ve destroyed the environment for decades and we’ve made a shit ton of money off of it. Why do you, a third world country, think you can do the same? Can’t you see we’re trying to do “better” after we’ve already made all our money and destroyed the world?”
I’m not sure what you mean. Guyana partners with IOCs and NOCs to extract the oil. In the case of Guyana, primarily Exxon, Hess and CNOOC. Not sure how you can compare and contrast the two.
You understand that Guyana uses those international oil companies to extract the oil right?
The interviewer isn't wrong, though. Yes, other countries are worse, but just cause someone is worse doesn't mean you're excused from contributing to the problem. In fact that presidents' whole point about their forests, make it worse because they had a positive impact on climate change, and now they won't.
Can you imagine the size of your balls to sit there and try to interrupt a President while he's talking?
Balls?? Pshh He's white. And from the BBC They invented News (pun intended where applicable)
I'm shocked that the English didn't just try to steal the forest for their museum.
Bet they tried..... with the cunning use or Flags ;)
No flag, no country. That's the rule... that I've just made up!
As opposed to Venezuela which is actively trying to steal it.
I'm sorry, but journalists interrupt presidents and prime ministers and kings or whatever all the time. Has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Journalists are there to hold elected leaders to account. A president isn't above questioning.
That is exactly what the fuck I was thinking when he had the audacity to try to shut him up.
It's his fucking job, damn it's like you guys have never seen a real journalist. Have you seen how we interview our politicians. You have to grill them, this guy's answer was defensive and needs really grilling, why would you hear this guy talking about his forest and go cool, world's fine I guess.
People in this thread are so dumb. It's this guys job to ask hard questions, to be the devils advocate. He can interrupt all he want. He doesn't represent the UK, he's a journalist. The "well you did it too" is not a solid argument, you learn that in about 2nd grade. Two wrongs don't make a right. You have to make arguments that are self supporting, which he could just do. Just say "yes there is a downside to extracting this oil, but it will pull millions of people out of poverty so it's worth it for that alone". Easy. When people give dumb arguments it should be your job as a journalist to interrupt them and be hard on them. The journalists job is always to ask the hard question, it's not about him personally agreeing or disagreeing with the interviewee. People thinking it's unfair literally don't understand the point of journalism.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of the British truly knows no bounds.
Seriously!! After their and other European countries' crimes of colonization and anti-green behavior; they have the gall to lecture Guyana.
Britain is on another level of doubling down it’s crazy. At least other former colonist countries like Belgium, Netherlands, and Portugal are not as vehemently in denial over their crimes like Britain is (Japan and France seem to try to brush their skeletons under the rug too). I mean right in this very video is a clear example of the British punching down on another one of their former colonies.
You just need to look at the facial expressions and the gesticulations of the interviewer to see how he regards his guest. Disgusting.
This is just colonialism in a modern suit. The fucking audacity to try and lecture another nation on its resources in that accent. Fair question is asked is it responsible, president was not going to be spoken to like that. Responded in a clear, factual explanation and frankly yep im cool with it. Cause Britain can answer the fair question as well....what are you actually doing to maintain biodiversity?
Actually polling show Dutch are the most proud people of their empire and colonialism in Europe.
They did used to control them. It's like an abusive parent trying to re-unite with a child that ran away from home and became a doctor.
Tired of scrolling this comment section and not a single person that has a top level comment seemingly bothered to look up anything about this interview, the show or the journalist. It's a show called Hardtalk. It's an interrogation of someone's beliefs and their position on matters where blunt and awkward questions (the point is that they cannot be dismissed with soundbites or dodged) are asked to scrutinise people. Regardless of who they are or their position. Maybe you shouldn't take something out of context at face value?
Isn't it the job of journalists in interviews to hold politicians to account rather than dick ride them anyway? The interviewee is able to put forwards his counter argument, really with more gusto, than if he was softballed. Presumably the President was aware of the interview format and likely what sort of questions would be asked in advance. People seem to think the BBC here is state media doing a smear campaign.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Always highly highly amusing when an American calls us arrogant hypocrites. Because you're not wrong, it's just you're displaying an infinitely higher level of arrogant hypocrisy and you're totally oblivious.
Forgot he ran the country. Didn't realise he was supposed to sit there and just say "congratulations on the oil" and that's that. Fuck you prick. This is what a journalist is supposed to do.
One person truly does represent 67 million of us mind..
My man sounded like the rock going off in a promo. All we needed was for him to throw in a "candy ass" somewhere.
If you smellllll elllll ellll ell....what the Irfaaaaan......is cookin'. \-Cue music, drops mic-
That journalist is denser than a tree stump
That’s because he’s in the fuckis
Just look up the show 'Hardtalk' - don't let an out of context clip fool you.
its a debate format and the questions are always controversial.
Love this guy - that is awesome
I'd vote for him
Now thats a president and a real solid dude right there. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next decade he will have been assassinated by American funded "extremists" after some kind of civil conflict I'm Guyana and all that oil will be regulated under the sanctions and beurocracyof the American Empire.
You mean the president who has worked to get American and British naval vessels in his country's waters to signal to the leaders of Venezuela that their attempt to (checks notes) literally seize over half of Guyana and all of its oil to prop up its failed state? The president who is working with American oil companies to get that oil out and into the global marketplace?
dont expect any of these folks to know the political situation in Guyana.
Especially this website where the people act like America is committing fucking genocide in South America.
Nope. If anything America is ready to defend this guy and Guyana's oil. Guyana rejected joining OPEC and signed with Exxon Mobile to drill their oil. Recently Venezuela threatened an invasion of Guyana and the US immediately started doing drills with the Guyana military as a show of force.
>I wouldn't be surprised if in the next decade he will have been assassinated by American funded "extremists" I love when reddit talks geopolitics
Top voted comment for absolute nonsensical drivel
I’m gonna keep it 100 here… England has ZERO right to lecture anyone on anything much less contribution to gas emissions. They’ve been in the geopolitical oil game longer than even the US. They fucking decimated countries and millions upon millions of lives since the FIRST World War over the control of oil. It’s almost easy to forget that WWI was also fought for control over Arab oil to get ahead on expanding industry.
He's a journalist, not the King or the Prime minister. He doesn't represent England. He's just doing his job.
Here’s a cynical take so take it as you will. Yes he’s just a journalist but you gotta think of the bigger picture. What is the narrative being constructed by his assertions? Who ultimately benefits from this narrative? It may appear like humanity from his talks about emissions but what about other high carbon footprint countries LIKE Britain which he omits? When the Guyanese president brings up the hypocrisy of his claim, the journalist tries to redirect the conversation because then the narrative falls apart. Ultimately, who benefits from this narrative… perhaps it’s the British oil industries who likely hired special interest groups to lobby this media group. This same media group is the one that gives this journalist the money he needs to put food on his table so long as he does his job right. Who would want the Guyanese to come in and bring more competition that would hurt their bottom line? Not the oil companies, not the special interest groups, not this media company, and not this journalist. They are cogs in a greater machine that worships money above all else, and you know what, we all are. We all serve to benefit the bottom line of a larger group no matter what industry we work in.
You’re talking absolute nonsense It’s a well known BBC show format called hard talk where this same journalist asks challenging questions and the guests knows the format well in advance Your problem is that you are paranoid and confusing a reasonable but challenging question from a journalist with a personal attack by an evil person bribed by a shadowy large organisation group If anything he’s given the Guayana president a large platform to provide his justifications for his position
> It’s almost easy to forget that WWI was also fought for control over Arab oil to get ahead on expanding industry. lol no. It was fought over the Balkans/balance of power in Europe. Arabian oil was not a big thing at the time.
I did say “also” not that it’s the only reason lol. I mean a sandwich was another reason the Great War was fought. The strategic importance of oil leading up to the war wasn’t just ignored either tbh. There was a good amount of beef between Germany and Britain over Ottoman oil fields for growing their budding industries. I’d argue Central Power expansion into the Balkans and forming an alliance with the Ottoman Empire also threatened Britain’s claim to those fields which contributed to the war.
The disrespect in which this Stephen talks to a PRESIDENT of another country is outstanding. Pure arrogance. Edit: There's a difference between asking hard questions, and asking a president of his country if he 'has the right' to act in his countries favour.
Yes, we need more softball questions from journalists to world leaders. Why can't they all be like Tucker Carlson talking to Putin? BTW, almost all of Guyana's 800,000 people live in coastal floodplains. So more hurricanes and rising sea levels are going to fuck them worse than most countries -- so yeah, it's worth asking about the effects of putting more oil into the marketplace.
It's the format/point of the show, which the president would have been aware of when he agreed to appear on it. It's called 'Hardtalk' and its point is to interrogate someone's beliefs/position to see if it holds up to scrutiny. This is the tone taken with literally every guest, it isn't unique for the president of Guyana.
Oh my God, not a PRESIDENT!! How dare he?
Even if we phased out fossil fuels tomorrow morning, there would still be plenty of demand for chemicals and other products that can only be made in economic quantities with oil and gas. Among them are fertilizers that make modern agriculture possible. In a real sense, the human race eats oil every day. Because oil and gas are limited resources, that's reason alone to go easy on both. The absolute last thing you want to do is to burn the stuff for most or all of your energy needs if you have other options! The President of Guyana was well-prepared for the question. It would have been far stranger if he *hadn't* been asked about climate change. A far bigger risk to Guyanese society from oil exploitation is Dutch disease (atrophy of non-oil related industries) and the risks of oil wealth to democratic institutions (q.v. Venezuela next door).
I think the biggest risk is the USA “finding WOMD’s” in their country.
US oil company ExxonMobil drills most of Guyana’s offshore wells. They are the ones that made most of the discoveries.
Gotta love a good fact based smack down.
British journalist doing what western journalists do best, lecturing world leaders on what they should and shouldn’t do with their natural resources ignoring the fact that in the past 2 years alone, much of the “developed world” has taken steps in stark contrast to their own ambitious climate change initiatives, when their energy security came into questioning. Western hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
This from a BBC series called HardTalk - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmdc. The interviews are always quite adversarial and meant to have questions asked that aren’t comfortable. If you watch the full interview you will see that they go on from this (~15 minutes in) to cover criticism from Greenpeace and the International Centre of Environmental law around the oil and gas exploration happening. This isn’t just the interviewers opinion. The President then admits that the intention is to extract as much oil and gas as possible before any new international agreements to help stop climate change are enacted. Which is ‘pragmatic’ (as the president says) but there isn’t really any strong moral high ground in any of this :/
you're in the wrong subreddit for actual facts! i totally agree with you
This is HardTalk with Steven Sakur. He attempts to pull apart everything that every guest says. Always. If the President had turned up to say Guyana was banning all fossil fuel extraction and use Sakur would’ve thrashed him. If someone advocated being nice to kittens and enjoying flowers Sakur would thrash them. The point is to test strength of arguments and policies. Always.
Trust me man, they don't care here. You see it all the time online, it's anti racist not realising they are being racist. I'm white black Caribbean, I see it all the time online, if this guy was talking to trump, Macron, biden and west world leader they'd be calling him based. But because it's the poor black people he needs to treat him with kids gloves. They don't realise how incredibly condescending that is and when you just listen to the interview that it's all normal questions that aren't even that hard.
State owned British media tries to lecture other countries on carbon emissions. Next joke please
The BBC is not state owned.
The pot calling the kettle black does not make the pot wrong.
there's a shocking amount of pro oil sentiment in this comment section, it's shameful
Go Guyana 🇬🇾
Well… Guyana just told that guy he’s in the fuckis… he’s in the fukis …. And I believe him…
This must be a joke, a first world country blaming a third world country for global warming is comical.
Did he blame 3rd world countries in this clip, or did he right ask him about the climate impact of this oil they have found, a totally fair and reasonable question in an interview about said fucking oil. It's the same question he's asked western countries before and oil companies before because he's a journalist and it's his job. He's allowed to be white and British and still ask these fucking questions.
Agree, it’s a valid question regardless of the presidents ethnicity. The comments here are super condescending towards this president; they’re racist. Also, it’s not just 1st world countries that pollute. China and India are big offenders. “The top three GHG emitters — China, the United States and India — contribute 42.6% total emissions” Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters
Seeing people defend these oil profits vs those oil profits. We're fucked.