4 ms·

I was pretty impressed by the article and just watched the youtube interview and came out less impressed than before I read the article. The questions were too

by Zaheer 12y ago

I was pretty impressed by the article and just watched the youtube interview and came out less impressed than before I read the article. The questions were too soft - even CNN and other big news outlets ask tougher questions than these guys did. I understand they have to be themselves but if this is supposed to be the next outlet for news, it doesn't make me very hopeful.

dsuth 12y ago
I thought the authors questions were pretty good, slightly less impressed with the next two (although I would also identify with the first guy more, so maybe there's something to this whole thing). The thought I came away with was that it was probably actually a pretty easy interview for him, not because they threw him softballs, but because there's a genuine lack of political sophistication and knowledge from the interviewers, and by extension their audiences. I think Obama realised it too by the end, and did a reasonable job of not coming off too patronising - except for the movie bit. He could have emphasised that all of their viewers have a voice, but it only counts if they use it.
michaelt 12y ago
For those who haven't seen the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k To me the questions the interviewers planned up front seem reasonably solid - what's missing is anything after Obama's responses. The interviewers don't ask follow-up questions, ask about things the answer omitted, or challenge anything that was in the answer - they just move on to the next question. Of course it would be a mistake for us to fetishize combative interviews or to say the interviewer must always disagree with the politician regardless of what they say. But if this type of interview is the future of journalism, the interviewers need to get better at asking probing questions on the fly, not just scripted questions they've had months to come up with.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "the interviewers need to get better at asking probing questions on the fly, not just scripted questions they've had months to come up with." ... or the interviews need to last for years.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Seriously, the ability for the interviewers to say "Okay, now actually answer the question I asked you" would be helpful. This is an absolutely infuriating pattern - question is asked, answer is given that doesn't even attempt to address the question, interviewer moves on.
    - MrDom 12y ago
      I sympathize with both sides. It does frustrate me as well, but if the interviewers did that, people would stop agreeing to do interviews with them. It effectively prevents the interviewee from controlling the narrative, which is the only reason to agree to an interview in the first place.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        I don't sympathize with the media at all. If they all stopped trading softball treatment for access, they wouldn't need to trade softball treatment for access anymore. They raced to the bottom and we all lost.
        MrDom 12y ago
        They didn't lose. On the contrary, they won.

by Zaheer 12y ago

dsuth 12y ago

I thought the authors questions were pretty good, slightly less impressed with the next two (although I would also identify with the first guy more, so maybe there's something to this whole thing). The thought I came away with was that it was probably actually a pretty easy interview for him, not because they threw him softballs, but because there's a genuine lack of political sophistication and knowledge from the interviewers, and by extension their audiences. I think Obama realised it too by the end, and did a reasonable job of not coming off too patronising - except for the movie bit. He could have emphasised that all of their viewers have a voice, but it only counts if they use it.

michaelt 12y ago

For those who haven't seen the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k To me the questions the interviewers planned up front seem reasonably solid - what's missing is anything after Obama's responses. The interviewers don't ask follow-up questions, ask about things the answer omitted, or challenge anything that was in the answer - they just move on to the next question. Of course it would be a mistake for us to fetishize combative interviews or to say the interviewer must always disagree with the politician regardless of what they say. But if this type of interview is the future of journalism, the interviewers need to get better at asking probing questions on the fly, not just scripted questions they've had months to come up with.

dllthomas 12y ago
"the interviewers need to get better at asking probing questions on the fly, not just scripted questions they've had months to come up with." ... or the interviews need to last for years.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Seriously, the ability for the interviewers to say "Okay, now actually answer the question I asked you" would be helpful. This is an absolutely infuriating pattern - question is asked, answer is given that doesn't even attempt to address the question, interviewer moves on.
  - MrDom 12y ago
    I sympathize with both sides. It does frustrate me as well, but if the interviewers did that, people would stop agreeing to do interviews with them. It effectively prevents the interviewee from controlling the narrative, which is the only reason to agree to an interview in the first place.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I don't sympathize with the media at all. If they all stopped trading softball treatment for access, they wouldn't need to trade softball treatment for access anymore. They raced to the bottom and we all lost.
      - MrDom 12y ago
        They didn't lose. On the contrary, they won.