He sits down at timestamp 33:34 and says that remark at timestamp 1:09:12. So he was there for 35 minutes.
The characterisation "a few minutes into their discussion" seems disingenuous.
Raw Story may be on the same side as us but they are still complete trash. Headline is often a straight-up lie.
35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?
No no, that's not what I'm saying. Just that there's no need to over dramatise the events in a way that makes your point shakier than it has to be.
And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.
A few minutes is like, five minutes.
Actually, now I'm remembering all the times I've disagreed with people on their use of the phrase "a few," so I'm starting to see how this could be more a matter of opinion...
Still something I wouldn't expect a professional writer and/or editor to let slip unless they were purposely looking to embellish, though.
I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.
I would disagree with that, but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm on shaky ground here.
There's no context where 35 = "a few".
This entire article is sensationalized. Bongino doesn't even really seem phased when trump says he's gotta go.
that's less than a job interview though
Sure. It's also less than a train ride between Zürich and Bern.
I went and checked the source: https://bongino.com/ep-2353-live-with-president-donald-trump
He sits down at timestamp 33:34 and says that remark at timestamp 1:09:12. So he was there for 35 minutes.
The characterisation "a few minutes into their discussion" seems disingenuous.
Raw Story may be on the same side as us but they are still complete trash. Headline is often a straight-up lie.
35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?
No no, that's not what I'm saying. Just that there's no need to over dramatise the events in a way that makes your point shakier than it has to be.
And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.
A few minutes is like, five minutes.
Actually, now I'm remembering all the times I've disagreed with people on their use of the phrase "a few," so I'm starting to see how this could be more a matter of opinion...
Still something I wouldn't expect a professional writer and/or editor to let slip unless they were purposely looking to embellish, though.
I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.
I would disagree with that, but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm on shaky ground here.
There's no context where 35 = "a few".
This entire article is sensationalized. Bongino doesn't even really seem phased when trump says he's gotta go.
that's less than a job interview though
Sure. It's also less than a train ride between Zürich and Bern.