I remember on 9/11, some TV reporter on some major channel who wanted the stock “everything was traumatic” story from a maintenance guy who got out of one of the towers shortly before they came down.
Reporter: So you were in the sub-basement when the impact happened? How long did it take you to get all the way up to the doors and out?
Maintenance guy: I’d say it took about forty seconds.
Reporter: That must have seemed like a long time.
Maintenance guy: I’d say forty seconds. Maybe thirty.
Reporter (clearly exasperated): Yes, but how long did it feel like?
Yeah, I understand the desire to have that human interest piece, but as a journalist if you’ve already written the story before you do the interview, you’re a bad journalist. Fluff isn’t necessarily bad (interviews with kids in Gaza is super useful for our understanding of the war, for instance); it just becomes bad when a reporter or an editor decides what the story is at the beginning.
I remember on 9/11, some TV reporter on some major channel who wanted the stock “everything was traumatic” story from a maintenance guy who got out of one of the towers shortly before they came down.
Reporter: So you were in the sub-basement when the impact happened? How long did it take you to get all the way up to the doors and out?
Maintenance guy: I’d say it took about forty seconds.
Reporter: That must have seemed like a long time.
Maintenance guy: I’d say forty seconds. Maybe thirty.
Reporter (clearly exasperated): Yes, but how long did it feel like?
There’s a lot of fluff in media.
Yeah, I understand the desire to have that human interest piece, but as a journalist if you’ve already written the story before you do the interview, you’re a bad journalist. Fluff isn’t necessarily bad (interviews with kids in Gaza is super useful for our understanding of the war, for instance); it just becomes bad when a reporter or an editor decides what the story is at the beginning.