Slashdot Mirror
Interviewing the Interviewer (vulture.com)
Terry Gross, NPR's The Fresh Air host, on the art of the Q&A: "People are always projecting things. They're hearing things that weren't said or projecting meaning that was not intended and, perhaps, not even implied. I've gotten both insults and compliments for interviews I've never done. What can you do? There's no way of controlling what people think. I do have a bullshit detector and it's something I'll use, but I do think I try and be empathetic to everyone I interview," said Terry Gross.
This was a fascinating article with amazing insights. I didn't even bother to read it.
Interesting to know if you have a better example of how to interview someone.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So this is an interview where one interviewer interviews and another interviewer who usually interviews some famous people?
Where's the nerd connection? Is it that the nerds among us would start genering jokes about the meta-levels of interviewing?
Can we reach level three here by having a slashdot Q&A with the author? Level four, anybody?
Bill O'Reilly
Interesting to know if you have a better example of how to interview someone.
Involving electricity no less.
NPR to be informed.
I don't get why folks have a problem with NPR. It's the only news source that I can actually hear both sides without the yelling and other bullshit - they do have many conservatives and Republicans on and let them say what they have to say. As a matter of fact, it's the only source where I can actually hear and understand the conservative side because the NPR folks actually ask decent questions.
And NPR is the news source that keeps me a centrist and not drinking the Leftist Kool-Aid because I can hear the rational versions of the conservative side - unlike Fox News.
I also can hear the rational side of the liberal side.
Nerd connection is we're terrible at anything social, and interviewing brings that right out.
At least to those educated enough to listen to public radio.
Say what you will about Terry Gross, but she is an astute observer and has a breadth of knowledge about human psychology from the sheer number of years that she has spent interviewing and studying people. I find her personally overbearing and a little annoying but I will give her the credit she is due. However, I do like it when her bullshit-o-meter hits critical mass and she can no longer hold back. People need a good solid dose of reality at times.
Translation: NPR leans on the other side of the political spectrum where I sit, therefore it doesn't belong on Slashdot because the only things that belong on Slashdot are things *I* agree with.
I can't take anything Terry gross says seriously, not because she's transparently progressive - which she is. It's that SNL Alex Baldwin sketch. Oh, and the dusty muffin one with Kate McKinnon ...
Those have replaced the lens with which I see her ..
Would you like to post a link to an interview that you felt was extremely biased one way or the other? NPR has everything up on their website.
Translation: I totally agree with NPRs biased slant therefore it should be talked about everywhere - including a site for TECH stories.
Thus proving my point.
A- fucking-men.
Any of you fuck faces who can't see that should just kill yourself
Terry Gross is nearly 67 (next month) and her shows have, imho, displayed the characteristics of an aging host. Her subjects have become less relevant to anyone outside the art & lit communities
and she's lost, imho, a certain clarity in her questions. Still, you can learn a lot about how to more effectively interact with someone who doesn't share your worldview (ie almost everyone) from her. But anyone who claims NPR (which I listen to) is centrist or unbiased is delusional - they are strongly biased. Both her, her show, and the NPR "network". The thing they do have which few other shows seem to care about is a high level of journalistic integrity. But "unbiased"?? LOL! It would be interesting if she interviewed her show's producer about how they decide on which people to interview and which subjects to talk about. I'd be surprised if they admitted that her show is left-right "blind", or that the weight of donations to NPR are from people on the left but that doesn't influence those choices.
So you think that asking your favored government officials softball questions is a proper way to interview?
Anyone who says they have the truth is either a religious fanatic or is trying to sell you something.
Oh yeah.
Ayeeeeeeeeeee-FUCKING MEN!
You go girl!
Now this isn't all Terri's fault... Bill O'Reilly is a huge douchebag and Al Franken is charming. But listen to her differing approach in these two interviews of people who, at the time, had almost the exact same role (political-based entertainment):
Bill O'Reilly's Fresh Air Interview
Al Franken's Fresh Air Interview
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
What exactly was your point?
That NPR is no good? You spent most of your post addressing the article, and then you said it doesn't belong here. . .
So what point are you talking about?
It seems to me that you are a nerd, and this article really hit a chord within your nerdyness. . .
Yeah MY bullshit detector is an air-raid siren when reading you.
Your comment is a perfect example of a NPR listener!
We are discerning, we don't take things at face value, we question and are skeptical......
Of course there's horseshit! We've all heard it. I mean there have been times when I have cringed at what I've heard.
But all in all, NPR is one of the best things in the USA for information - obviously it's not perfect. But that's what the tissue in our skull is for.
You're preaching to choir.
-Parent Poster
Is he especially charming when he's grabbing ass or sticking his tongue down your throat without permission? And even after half a dozen accusations, he was still prepared to stay on the job and call his accusers liars. Luckily his superiors realized they can't be the Official Party of Morality and attack Roy Moore unless they threw Franken under the bus first. Sexual harrassment is not a big deal if you have a (D) by your name.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my point... did the word "Franken" trigger you? I certainly wasn't defending the man, but he is charming. So is Bill Clinton, and I think the man is far worse than Franken in the sexual predator department.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Charming and Frankenstein don't go together. He is as much of an asshole as ORielly.
I was just trying to cut Terri a break - but whether or not you agree that he is charming is not really important to make my point. She clearly approached the two men very differently and my assertion is it was (perhaps unconscious) bias on her part.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I've written a fair amount and notice the same things the interviewer/ee talks about. People regularly complain about things they claim I wrote which I didn't. Or complain I didn't cover something I've written about several times. People often project their own emotions on columns I wrote and then complain or compliment based on their own slant. It's very weird getting hate or fan mail for things I haven't done or written.
I feel like going back to the old SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE sketch with Dan Akaroid and Jane Curtain.
Weekend News Update
"Jane, you ignorant Slut"
The Shame here is that, no one here probably remembers it, I mean it was in the 70's. Maybe..
But i'll say this, the shit She is shoveling here is pathetic, dumbs down your audience, forces the inteligence factor down on your avg reader, and it introiduces the element of white shit trash. Just like TRUMP that ShitHole
It's "Goat C".
You don't think:
1.) Terry Gross is a nerd?
2.) That her stuff matters?
I do, and I enjoyed the article.
Get your own goddam forum and edit it yourself.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Of course resident social justice warrior AmiMojo is going to show up and defend NPR's honor while not actually saying anything of value.
empathy, riiiight.
I’m really not fond of her interviewing style. I find that, like many seasoned journalists, she rarely lets her guests develop their thoughts for more than a few seconds, interrupting them and then speaking as much (if not more) than them. She has the irritating tendency to feed words to her guests (at least, those who are less comfortable speaking than her), starting a line of thought for them (as in “It must have felt so blah blah such and such. How did you feel when blah blah blah?”) and getting them to just repeat and complete the line, and so basically making them say something that they likely would not have quite said on their own. She may be confusing that technique with “getting them to open up” but, in reality, the result feels about as valuable as a forced police confession.
It’s a pity, given that her shows are pre-recorded and edited, giving her the opportunity to let guests take as much time as they’d like to precisely formulate their thoughts.
Since non-scientists (and some scientists) don't understand the scientific meaning of words they use, (time, energy, matter, consiousness, evolution, etc.) they use these words as icons which they suppose validate their (religious, cultural, political) opinions.
Apparently, it meant a LOT to you.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
When she's doing trivial entertainment type interviews, she's fine. But she (and everyone else on public radio) have a definite left-wing bias. They're just more urbane about presenting it.