|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't believe in 'gotcha'
I don't believe in the mythological "gotcha" moment reporters like to dream about, for a couple of reasons. 1. I've never seen it happen, in years of being interviewed, and knowing people who are often interviewed. I've never seen a reporter ask a question and get an answer that revealed something unusual that was actually understood by the reporter, and made its way into print in a form a reader could use.
2. I've seen really interesting juicy stories out there, ready to be reported, on the record, attributable, with dozens of supposedly ambitious and relentless fact-diggers swarming all around, and instead of going for the gusto, they cling to the safe tried-and-true nauseatingly boring and insignificant overtold bedtime stories.
In other words, if you fancy yourself a Woodward or Bernstein, stop boasting and go out and do some work and take some risks. Until then I don't see why you need to talk to someone for 25 minutes for a 12-second soundbite. I don't see who that serves. I don't think very much listening is happening in that process. I think if the subject spent the 25 minutes blogging instead, the world would be a much better place for it.
So here's a question for the reporters who may be listening. Did you learn anything in the discussion about interviews, or did we just talk over each others' heads?
|
Last update: Thursday, June 3, 2010; 4:00:45 PM
Mail: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 1997-2010 Dave Winer. Last build: 6/3/10; 10:29:41 PM. "It's even worse than it appears." Previous / Next |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||