Comments from feedback form - "incredibly leading questions. ..."
incredibly leading questions. the interviewer displays clear bias through complicity, and makes little attempt to argue against the points made
Why would I argue against the points made? That would be bias. It is up to you to argue against (or for) the points made and draw your own conclusions, not for me to try and make or break them.
Because I have little knowledge about the political situation in Greece, I have found the interview interesting even without arguing.
But I do think that playing the role of advocatus diaboli is considered a good habit in journalism, not a bias.
Even the toughest pros (Paxman, Humphrys) ask leading questions now and again. I think the tactic of asking a sympathetic warm-up question ("slavish pursuit of free-market capitalism") is risky: in this case the interviewee felt able to wrap her answer up in Marxist jargon.