See this paragraph in my response to Jeff about whether the Observer journalist did go beyond the press release;

“I think the Observer gains a lot from interviewing you, even if the reporter is basically just repeating what you said in your blog; it gives context of the personality behind these ideas. Little details ranging from the way you dress (the type of glass you wear, for instance) to how you respond to questions help in fleshing out a profile.”

I think these guys are right. Gary Scott especially makes a strong argument for the value of interviews.

The way you arrogantly list your credentials is really obnoxious, and the way you try to come off as a wise, old prof at CUNY is kind of a joke. If I had a prof like you, I’d complain to the university.

Are you for real? Jesus, then you really need to grow up and get a grip if you want to be taken seriously. The premise of this post is ridiculous and I’ll go beyond what Jeff says. This isn’t simply an example of misguided satire, it shows a complete inability to comprehend something SO simple that I feel compelled to get “abrasive” and call you stupid.

Jeff’s WHOLE POINT was that he expected a reporter to go BEYOND the press release and blog in an interview! HOW COULD YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Maybe you need reading classes. Worse than being a “bad reporter,” now I just think you’re an idiot. I hope no one is paying you consulting fees.

Not sure why you compel me into snark. I think it’s often because you take an abrasive strategy when you write about others, and it automatically sends me into a defensive posture, even though I’m not the subject of your posts.

Then there’s the matter of holding people to account: for what they write in private – challenging their ideas, pushing them beyond their comfort zone, forcing them to face inconvenient facts or opinions. Also, on the more paranoid side, who the hell knows if someone is responsible for what they write on their blog? … something needs to check the identity and corporeal oneness of the author of these blogs.

Jeff’s argument makes perfect sense if he wants to remain in control. This is a common response from people who find themselves under the scrutiny of journalists (I’ll be happy to pass out resumes as well), be they politicians, corporate bosses or well-meaning intellectuals.

Thanks for commenting in return. Why couldn’t you have said it this way in the first place? Your comment is so much more informative of your thinking than your post – and not insulting and snarky for the sake of it.

It’s well worth examining the value of the in-person interview now. But it’s also worth examining the value of links in the process, not all controlled by one reporter holding all the cards but more three-dimensional view that can be drawn via links. I started writing about this here: – http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/26/the-obsolete-interview/ – and hope to add to the thinking in a later post (I’m on deadline for the Guardian right now and so I’m being brief). I see new opportunities for the interview.

Simon, this is now the second time you’ve chosen to react to something I’ve said first with insult and then with discussion. Can we please skip the first step? Or there’s soon no point in the second.