To me, the most interesting thing about that clip has nothing to do with tech, but with journalism - the show host is actually asking him some kind of tough questions and putting him on the spot instead of just giving him a stage to spew his talking points... I kind of remember when journalism worked that way, but it's jarring to see it in the context of modern "talking point regurgitation machine" journalism where the stories are written by corporate press secretaries and copy-pasted into media.
The UK still has a good selection of sharp, merciless interviewers. My favourite is Jeremy Paxman, he's quite a polarising personality but cuts through bs like paper.
I don't understand why interviews (for journalism purposes) are conducted face to face. A written back and forth, such as in a forum or thread, is much more useful at cutting through the BS rather than having to waste time listening to evasive responses. I guess there may be some value in the facial reactions of the subject, but most of the time, if there was a written transcript, I'd have saved a lot of my time and energy.
I absolutely disagree. It is far, far easier to be evasive by text - especially when you have time to compose a reply. Face to face, real time interviews show you when the interviewee doesn't want to answer a question, when they're bluffing, etc.
There might be some people in the world for whom text reveals more of the interviewee's secrets, and other people that pick up more via face to face interviews.
I'm willing to bet that for most people the latter is more intuitive.
Interesting point. Although you'd probably get similar evasive responses, the host saying "Now answer more clearly", and a different (but equally evasive) response. They'd have time to concoct a seemingly informative but ultimately useless response.
Comments
To me, the most interesting thing about that clip has nothing to do with tech, but with journalism - the show host is actually asking him some kind of tough questions and putting him on the spot instead of just giving him a stage to spew his talking points... I kind of remember when journalism worked that way, but it's jarring to see it in the context of modern "talking point regurgitation machine" journalism where the stories are written by corporate press secretaries and copy-pasted into media.
The UK still has a good selection of sharp, merciless interviewers. My favourite is Jeremy Paxman, he's quite a polarising personality but cuts through bs like paper.
I don't understand why interviews (for journalism purposes) are conducted face to face. A written back and forth, such as in a forum or thread, is much more useful at cutting through the BS rather than having to waste time listening to evasive responses. I guess there may be some value in the facial reactions of the subject, but most of the time, if there was a written transcript, I'd have saved a lot of my time and energy.
I absolutely disagree. It is far, far easier to be evasive by text - especially when you have time to compose a reply. Face to face, real time interviews show you when the interviewee doesn't want to answer a question, when they're bluffing, etc.
There might be some people in the world for whom text reveals more of the interviewee's secrets, and other people that pick up more via face to face interviews.
I'm willing to bet that for most people the latter is more intuitive.
Interesting point. Although you'd probably get similar evasive responses, the host saying "Now answer more clearly", and a different (but equally evasive) response. They'd have time to concoct a seemingly informative but ultimately useless response.
This happens in a lot of Reddit AMAs...