TV interview with Josef Pamies backfires on the journalist

TV interview with Josef Pamies backfires on the journalist

Few television interviews manage to leave the viewer more interested in the guest than in the issue he was meant to be grilled about. Josef Pamies, an advocate of natural medicine best known for defending the kalanchoe plant, appeared on a TV show in what has become a perfect example of how an aggressive interrogation can achieve exactly the opposite of what it intends.

The journalist (whom viewers themselves have called a "thug" or a "loudmouth") confronted Pamies from the very first minute with epithets like "this guy" or "character", seeking to discredit him without a single formal complaint having been filed against the herbalist shop. The reporter's hostility contrasted with Pamies's almost unsettling calm, and far from being intimidated, he came out stronger. Social media and opinion forums, reflecting a spontaneous reaction from the audience, turned the story around: the interviewer became the villain.

The debate focused above all on the kalanchoe, a plant that some studies suggest may be a natural anticancer remedy, but which the pharmaceutical industry and mass media label as poison without conclusive evidence. "If there are scientific studies", the argument goes, "why is it demonized?" Suspicion of Big Pharma and its alleged control of information channels hung over the entire conversation.

In the end, the show achieved the opposite of what it set out to do: it sparked curiosity about Pamies and his remedies. When the interviewer's aggression outweighs the substance of the arguments, the public usually sides with the person under attack. Is the interview the right format for debating complementary therapies, or does it only serve to polarize further? The question remains open.