"... Email interviews are boring, and worthless ..." ... but more accurate. It's hard to mis-quote someone in writing (a good reason to use email). Maybe the b

"... Email interviews are boring, and worthless ..." ... but more accurate. It's hard to mis-quote someone in writing (a good reason to use email). Maybe the boring bit your talking about is the lack of physical contact between the interviewer & interviewee giving the writer less chance to interpret and make insights that can lead to writing a more entertaining piece. From the interviewee standpoint, fact is far more important than spin or fiction. From a reader point of view, facts mixed with entertainment (& possible spin) maybe what they expect. But I ask myself, "what do I want to get when I read about something, I really want to know "hard information" about?" - the facts? impressions or entertainment? I'll settle for the dry facts & any entertainment in the way of humour or language is nice, but secondary.