In-Class "Something Instead of Nothing"

1. We recently discussed the irony that we can't really point out what is "cool." This relates to identity, in that we can't always recognize others' or our own identity. We can be interpreted in different ways. Klosterman spoke on this in this essay because we can express ourselves and our identity in interviews, but not always honestly. People can lie to make themselves more interesting, or their answers could be unintentionaly skewed by the question or circumstance.


2. Klosterman's overarching research question is why people respond in interviews.


3. He shows in this essay that there are many reasons why people answer questions and there are different circumstances. This is adequate because there probably isn't one definite answer.


4. We believe that people's responses will always be a little skewed by bias in an attempt to make themselves sound better. Therefore, it is hard to trust an interviewee to tell the whole truth.


5. We disagree because a totally reasonable person could still have a great idea worth sharing or a product to sell and an interivew is a good way, if not in some cases the only way, to accomplish that.

Unsaid

This was a very interesting article, as speech in general really interests me, especially things people say sometimes. I like to think that often times people say things that they don’t mean to say of at least shouldn’t. The more that people open up the better a story it may make, but often times it is difficult to get people to do so. I think that all the questions asked by the journalism students as to how to get people to open up make a lot of sense. It is hard to get people to open up, but that is when the best interviews occur. Making people feel comfortable is the best way to do this and I think to be a successful journalist you have to be able to get people to say these things and be comfortable saying them. The whole article really makes sense when you think about it. A simple concept of getting people to open up can be so complicated. I'd like to try my interview skills and then reflect upon this article some more.

Something Instead of Nothing!

I thought that this was a very interesting article as I was reading it. I found it interesting that she thought that interviewing other people rather than answering questions was interesting. Although I cannot relate, I have not done either one of those things. So while doing this final project I feel like ill then be able to take a stance in which I prefer over the other. I mean I feel like conversations are kind of like interviewing one another but your not really thinking that way so therefore you do not comprehend the information as you would when you are really interviewing someone.

Something Instead of Nothing

I feel that with this article the art of speech really comes into play. Asking a question is ALOT easier than answering one. When you answer a question formally during an interview alot of what you might normally say is cut out of your vocabulary because you don't want to be frowned upon or looked down at. I also agree that getting people to loosen up when interviewing them is easily one of the smartest techniques there is in the art of interviews. If someone is tense and answers your questions you might end up with angry responses or stern. I feel that it all really depends on how you go about asking questions and your intentions in receiving certain answers. As for answering them I feel sometimes that the best words go un-said.

Something Instead of Nothing.

Why do people talk? Seriously, most of the time words and ideas we share only get us into trouble or create controversy and meaningless arguments.

I like Chuck Klosterman's list of why he continued to answer questions in his interview for that Norwegian book. Here is his list written in my "Pearl-ized" version:

1. People believe they have something worthy of contributing - so much so at times that they tell everyone else to shut up so they can talk. Most of the time whatever they thought was so important wasn't important at all. I could've lived just fine without ever hearing what comes out of some people's mouths.
2. While many of us talk without it being a formal, professional, paid job, we talk because we feel obligated to talk. If someone doesn't say anything, they look stupid. If someone doesn't respond or contribute anything, they don't know what's going on, or they don't care. Choosing to just stay silent is risky business.
3. It is also true that people talk just to be noticed and listened to. They just need to be able to talk and get things off their chests and have someone be there to hear it all and take it in.
4. People talk because they like to. For many, talking could probably be considered a hobby because they do it so often and with such vigor. They have nothing better to do than sit around and talk about everything and everyone.
5. People talk because it is polite to respond when questioned. While this is possible, all of the other reasons are much more likely. I don't think there are very many genuinely polite and nice people in existence. When people talk they usually have something to gain from it; they aren't just being cordial and offering their opinion and thoughts for nothing.
6. Responding and talking are instincts. I agree with Klosterman in that this is probably the most likely reason for why people open their mouths in the first place. When someone talks to me, it is almost automatic for me to say something back. I can't help it - even if all I can mutter is "Mmmhmmm." It's like taking turns.. Someone talks to you and takes their turn, and now it's yours. Speak, child.

Something instead of nothing

I thought this was a very interesting article. I can relate to Klosterman when he talks about how he thought answering questions would be easier than asking them. I had to interview a lot in high school for the school newspaper and wasn’t interviewed myself until my senior year. I agree with Klosterman, it was a lot harder than I thought, I had to watch what I said because I didn’t want to sound stupid or say the wrong thing, of course unlike him being Editor I could go in and edit what I said but I still remember the feeling of almost not knowing what to say and being careful with my words.
I also like what Ira Glass says when she talks about journalism students asking him how she gets people to open up to her. She says that she is curious about what the people he interviews, are saying. She says she honestly cares about the stories they are telling, I think this is very interesting. It is something I will be doing when I interview people now. The more people open up the better the story will be.

Ask Me, Tell Me.

"I don't feel like I know myself, let alone the people I interview. I might actually know the people I interview better than I know myself."
-Errol Morris

I was on my high school's newspaper staff for two years and a lot of my articles consisted of doing a profile on athletes, teachers, unrecognized staff, and every day, run of the mill students. I got such a thrill from asking these people all different types of questions, mainly because I liked comparing their answers to mine. I would also play a game, of sorts, and guess what their answer would be. I like being on the asking side rather than the receiving side because I like hearing, listening, and understanding others. It's really hard for me to talk about myself since, like Morris, I feel like I don't know myself. So it is just easier to shut up and understand others. My points don't come out as clearly as I want them to or people just don't understand, so instead of boasting of my odd thought process and "out there" ideas, I just take in everyone else's stories.

It is really fun though, when the person starts to weave lies. Truthfully, in all of my articles I wrote, I wouldn't doubt it if the people lied about half of what they told me. "What are your hobbies?" Of course they won't say drinking and smoking weed in friends' apartments or other risque things like that. Instead they will settle with a calm, mature response of "I play chess and volunteer with local homeless shelters." Bull. But whatever. To me, that just pieces together their persona and identity. Famous people, I'm sure have done this, too. They hide certain facts that would be detrimental to their career even though the paparazzi contradicts what they say with photo proof. Like I said, it just builds their characters.

So I play little games while interviewing which is why I like it so much. But it can almost feel like you are walking in a mine field when being interviewed.

"I assumed answering questions would be easier than asking them. This proved completely untrue. The process of being interviewed is much more stressful than the process of interrogating someone. If you make a mistake while you're interviewing someone else, there is no penalty (beyond the fact that it will be harder to write a complete story). But if you make a mistake while being interviewed-- if you admit something you'd prefer to keep secret, or if you flippantly answer a legitimately serious question, or if you thoughtlessly disparage a peer you barely know, or if you answer the phone while on drugs-- that mistake will inevitably become the focus of what is written."

I think it is human nature to want to share ideas and stories, but I will do that when I am talking to a stranger I will never meet again and who will not record anything or do anything that could damage my reputation. I'll stick to talking to strangers without trading names or information and just talk, or tell everything to the people I trust. Safety is in numbers but secrets are safer alone.

Interviews About Interviews. So Meta.

I imagine a lot of people couldn't give an honest or accurate answer when asked the question, "Why do you do interviews?" Someone who I hope to be interviewing for this final project gave a response to that exact question-- he said interviews are a meeting between two people, and it's simply something that is really cool. Anyone who sets time aside to get to know someone better, and have a personal conversation with, is someone worth talking to.

What we actually get as a final product of an interview is something worth thinking about. I am so glad that Errol Morris brought up the idea that people might have "privileged access" to their own minds. I too, agree with Morris in the respect that people don't have any idea of who they are. I don't know who I even am, and I struggle with that all the time. This idea alone is enough to make me skeptical of everything, including the things I say and think. The human perception of reality is so skewed, that it takes conscious understanding, willingness to overcome cognitive biases-- and even then we can't know for sure what is real. So the accuracy of interviews is disputable, but as Klosterman alludes to, it is the best mean we've got; it is still worth doing.

When I first read about the way Prince use to conduct interviews, I thought it was brilliant. Like Morris said, "his words could not be taken out of context if there was no context." After thinking about it a bit more, I could see possible negative unintended consequences that might come with it. Having someone else convey your message is a very scary thing, especially when one is without knowing the interviewees intent. I'd only recommend this style of giving interviews to people who cannot craft their own words carefully, and has little confidence in their own ability to represent themselves.

I enjoyed the process of blogging in this class, and I am going to continue doing it on my own. It's a great way to be reflective, and not writing to satisfy an audience is liberating.

"Something instead of Nothing"

This article really got me thinking about how truthful people are when they are being interviewed. Especially in the interviews I am going to conduct, for my final project. Are the people that I interview going to give me honest answers, or will they be somewhat scripted, to fit the identity that I already know them as. Also, It made me want to make my questions to be pretty open ended, so that there is a lot of room to talk, while I will certainly be able to bring the interviewee back to my main points during the interview. One thing that specifically stood out to me in this article is that being interviewed is much harder than being the interviewer. I will be asking my friends very deep personal questions about identity, and I want them to give me their honest opinions. I do not want my interview’s to feel like interrogations, where I need directly specific answers. I want my interviews to feel more like an informational conversation. I don’t want it to feel like we are sitting in a sauna baking under the pressure of the questions I am asking. I have taken interviewing class, so I feel like I have some good experience as to being an interviewer. Another thing in the article that really grabbed my attention is that interviewer’s look for people to make a mistake and when they do they use it against the person who said it. So they are able to get hidden truths out of people and hold it against them in a way. When I conduct my interview’s I am going to make sure, if my friends – accidentally say something, and they don’t want me to use it then I won’t because I am not a “bad guy” trying to find hidden truths about people and use them against people. Overall this article really got me thinking about my final project.

Something Instead of Nothing

I thought that this article was good. I thought it was interesting that she found interviewing other people interesting. I do agree that interviewing a person is the best way to get to know them. Just being able to ask them whatever you want is great. She said that the result was a semi-real conversation. I think that giving an interview is a real conversation after all you are talking to this person and trying to understand the way they are and what are their views in life so you would have to have a real conversation. I also like it when she said that in an interview the interviewee is trying to promote a product or a concept of themselves. I think that is very true. Some of the interview i have seen with people whether they are a celebrity or just a regular person on the street the conversation always gets reared towards themselves. I think that the interviewer has most of the control in the conversation. They can bring up whatever they want. I really couldn't answer the question on why people feel they that they have to answer a question. I do agree with Morris because some people so like to talk and explain things even if they don't fully understand what they are talking about. Humans just like to talk its what we were born to do.

Why Do People Talk?

I enjoyed reading what Ira Glass had to say about interviewing, and talking in general. She talked about how it's such a rare thing in our lives to have someone genuinely listen to what we have to say. Klosterman describes Glass as amicable and sincere, and she describes herself as legitimately curious about what people have to say. It seems this interest and sincerity would certainly help a person to open up to Glass in an interview. It's like when someone speaks to us excitedly and that excitement is contagious, the interviewee would respond to Glass with the same sincerity. Also, being genuinely interested in what a person has to say would help an interviewer because I think people would be more apt to respond simply because it is such a rare thing to have someone wholly listen to you. In class, or even out with friends, we don't hang on our professors', acquaintences', or friends' every word. In class or conversation, we get the gist of the physics lesson or the story about our friend's cat, enough for us to get by. In an interview, we are looking for interesting things for our paper or article; looking for direct quotes to add character and reliability; we really have to listen. This gives the speaker control and they may like that, as well, giving them another reason to respond.

something instead of nothing

Why do people answer the questions you ask them? Is there a unifying force that prompts people to respond? I thought these questions were interesting. I believe that not by saying anything, you are saying something. For example, if Susan's business is being portrayed in bad light in the media for something they are accused of doing, Susan may be asked questions by reporters. If she says nothing in response, reporters can turn that around and make assumptions out of her saying nothing.

Another thing i wanted to point out before we conduct our final issues deals with interview questions. I'm a broadcast journalism major and have spent the past few years conducting many, many interviews. One thing i've found is that preparation is very important. Preparing the questions you plan to ask can help the interview move smoothing. However, it's important to really listen to the interviewee for their responses. Some of the best material i've gotten for stories have been from spontaneous questions branched off of something the interviewee had said. Also, it's important in an interview to steer the conversation. If there's a stance or an angle you are trying to convey, you have to guide your interviewee in the direction sometimes. You have control over the outcome of the interview so if you end up with crappy material, it's because you didn't do your job thoroughly enough.

something instead of nothing

This was a very interesting article and it got me thinking a lot about interviews. I think It was interesting when klosterman was talking about the reasons as to why he even answered question when they were asked. His reasons for this was that he felt he had something important to say, it was his job, he has some type of craving for attention, he had nothing better to do, he was a nice person and lastly when asked a direct question its human nature to respond to the question. I think that all six of these reasons are very accurate. I do not think anyone would be able to argue that any of these six ways are not why people answer questions when they are asked. I feel like most people when asked a direct question they like expressing their own opinion about a topic because people always feel that they are right and that everyone should agree with them. People like voicing their opinions to other people to get a reaction out of someone and to see whether or not they agree.

I tried to remember the last time that I was interviewed for anything. It was actually last year when I was a freshmen I was sitting outside the dorms one day and a girl approached me and asked me if I would let her ask me a couple of questions about being a freshmen and the transformation it has been moving out of home. And right now I am trying to think of why I said yes to her and allowed her to interview me. And honestly I believe that the only reason I said yes to her was because I wanted to be a nice person and I didn’t want to shut her down and say no. which is exactly on of the reason that klosterman had presented and talked about in his paper.

Something instead of nothing

I enjoyed Klosterman's article "Something Instead of Nothing." He brings to mind questions that I am not so sure I would ever think to consider myself but indeed they are still interesting. Why do any of us feel compelled to answer a question? I definitely agree with Morris's statement that if people are expected to talk, "they do talk." This seems to make a lot of sense to me. I find that I often do many things simply because there is an often unspoken assumption that I am expected to (i.e. showing up for class). I also really liked the connection Klosterman made with Heath's statements; we do not necessarily answer questions because we are flattered by the attention but because we "feel as though we deserve to be. . ." possibly because the millions of us who aren't famous feel we are unheard and of course we value our own opinions. I feel like this all the time! I typically like answering questions in classes because I get to state aloud my thoughts and opinions and people (usually a teacher) have to at least pretend to be interested. Which brings to mind another point: people are more willing talk if they feel that the interviewer is genuinely interested in their story. I think that this is sort of a giving but actually seeing it helped me realize that when I conduct interviews for our final paper, I am going to have to be really attentive and sincere. I think I am going to learn that is much easier for me to be the interviewee than it is to be the interviewer. Yes, as the interviewer I don't have the burden of being misqouted or misunderstood in a personally detrimental way that maybe the interviewee does but I have an obligation to ask interesting questions that provoke interesting answers and interesting consequences. I am worried I won't be so good at this whole process but as Klosterman says, "It's something instead of nothing."

Something instead of nothing

I really enjoyed reading “Something Instead of Nothing” because it made think about things that have never really crossed my mind. For example, why should people answer any of the questions I’m asking? Or what makes the interviewee want to keep talking to me? All the questions that the interview with the Norwegian journalist brought up were all valid to me. Realizing that the stuff you’re answering doesn’t even matter to you at all, or possibly even the people in Norway, doesn’t seem like it would give you much of an incentive to do interviews like that.

I really enjoyed Errol Morris’ thoughts on interviews as well. I can see exactly what he is saying when he says he feels he knows the interviewer more than himself at the end of an interview. And while what he said about someone who doesn’t talk a lot is harder to trust is a little harsh in my opinion, I still think that someone who talks more can leave a better impression of themselves on someone.

Something Instead of Nothing

This article by Chuck Klosterman was very similar to when we read the Sims article. He takes something so simple such as a video game, or in this case an interview, and analyzes it in a whole different way than anyone else would think. He asks the questions why do we even care enough to conduct these interviews with people we dont really care for and really for no benefit for themselves. Its a typical Klosterman article just because it goes so deep. I don't know if I agree with it because it is just an interview. I'm more of a simplistic person I don't know why these people want to interview and I don't think there is a real reason of exactly why they do. There really isn't any benefit to themselves its just human nature. Although I think that Klosterman may take some of these questions to a ridiculous level, he definately knows how to make them interesting.

In-Class Cool

Both the simpsons episode we watched and the Malcolm Gladwell article connected the idea of the irrationality of what is cool. At the end of the Simpson's episode, both Marge and Homer are perplexed by what is considered cool and ask Bart and Lisa several times if what they're doing is cool, but each time the kids respond that what their parents are doing is not cool. The article also talks about how the "cool-hunters" could spot who they considered to be a "cool kid". What is considered cool is often influenced moreso by the person that decides it is cool, as that person is a very influential figure in style and has a peer pressure type of effect.

in class: Simpsons/ "Coolhunters"

Last Friday's Simpsons episode can be connected to the Gladwell reading because Homer was shocked to find out that he was uncool according to Bart because he was stuck in his time of what he thought was cool from when he was younger and he was not up to date on all the new trends and things that were in. Homer also tries to be cool by taking his kids to a concert for a band they liked because he was trying to follow the trends by following what his kids considered to be cool. It connects to the Gladwell reading of how the two girls are constantly scouting for the new trends and searching for next new thing.

Simpson's vs. Gladwell. -in class

Homer tried to undergo many changes to fit in with the stereotype of "cool". When at the music fest, Homer bought a reggae hat thinking it would make him appear cool and hip. Unfortunately, that was not what the crowd saw as "cool" and it backfired. Homer was accidently hit by a cannon and was given a job opportunity with the traveling freaks. Homer saw this proposal as an opportunity to look "cool" so he took the job. After a while of traveling, he was damaging his body and his doctor told him if he was hit by one more cannon he would die. Homer decided that death was not worth being "cool". He wanted to be a good father and at the end of the episode he realized that to him, being a good father was considered "cool". We can connect this to the article because Gladwell talked about appearance when looking "cool" and dressing in the right fashion. Also, doing activities you usually wouldn't, like Homer traveling with the Freaks, would make you cool. In the end, Homer found out what cool meant to him and that was his family. Gladwell also points out that what is considered "cool" changes so rapidly. Homer found this out when jamming in his car to music he thought was cool but the next generation thought it was so uncool. Gladwell also points out that when he grew up LA was alot cooler than what it is today. Cool changes so fast and what you think it cool when you're a teen, its most likely considered uncool by the time you're an adult.

Cool Hunters and The Simpsons

In Gladwell's article, he pointed out the paradox of cool - as cool becomes known or mainstream, it becomes uncool. For this reason, what is "cool" at any given time can be hard to name. This irony is portrayed in The Simpson's episode when the parents ask the kids if they're cool. The kids insist their parents aren't cool, and even though their mother says she doesn't care about being cool - her indifference still isn't cool. So what is? They don't really know, either.

Simpsons/Coolhunters

Both the article and the show demonstrate that cool is being sold to you. In the Simpson's episode, the festival that Homer went to had ads and flyers everywhere showcasing the "cool" things.

Also, in the article he talked about how you can't really force trying to be cool, and in the Simpson's episode, that was exactly what Homer was doing with the cannon.Cool can't also just be "explained", for example how Homer just stumbled onto being hit by the cannon.

Gladwell also mentioned in his article how it's the cool people that decide what is cool and that was reflected in the Simpson's episode well with the Smashing Pumpkins, Cypress Hill, etc.

The Cool Hunt- Simpsons Style

The definition of cool is always changing and people are always looking for the new "it" thing. It went from Teenage Angst songs to watching people get hurt. Rock and roll, that lost it's title of cool was moved to the oldies and newer music was the next best thing. Homer was caught in a struggle between thinking rock was cool then trying to be the new, updated version of cool by working at the freak show in Lollipolluza. The kids and youth seem to be the group that dictates what goes and what stays, even if the older population doesn't understand or doesn't agree with that idea. The Simpsons episode may have exaggerated some ideas in the episode when it went from thinking music was cool to thinking strange is cool. In today's society we see that. Specific example- people focused on Lady Gaga's music at first but then she started dressing a bit more.. out there... and the idea of cool shifted from music to "freak show." Homer was trying to be a freak to be accepted in society and by doing so he was famous. In the readings, a boy liked a womens' shoe so the company tried to advertise it towards men. By being a little different, the company found a new "cool."

Simpson's Coolhunt - In Class.

Homer was just basically trying to find a way that he could be cool, but according to the article, in order to be cool you must be instinctively cool. In the Simpsons episode, we learned that if you don't care if you're cool or not, you aren't cool. And, if you have to be told that you're cool, you're not cool. This is the same idea portrayed in the article. The "cool" kids that Baysie and DeeDee sought after were just cool - they didn't try to be cool, and they didn't have to be told they were cool.

Homer finally realized that what was cool when he was young isn't cool anymore - he was made fun of for being his version of "cool." This coincides with the fact that the word "cool" is very, very subjective, and what it defines is ever changing.

Is How it's Said More Important than What is Said?

I don't know how I felt about this article. It was extremly interesting for sure but it seems to me that everything Chuck Klosterman writes about tries to be at least that, extremely interesting. What makes his style extremely interesting is that he poses the questions that everyone else subconsciously wonders but either is too shy, to inarticulate, or too arrogant to ask or even to consider asking. Maybe that's being harsh but as I tried to digest what Chuck was saying, I started thinking more and more about how and even why he writes especially in the manner that he does. Any journalist can ask a question but Klosterman asks the right questions. I'm not sure I can explain what the "right" questions are other then what I already mentioned that the most people don't think to or just don't ask the questions that he does. As I thought of that in the context of the two readings of his that were assigned, personally, I thought that only someone who knew he wanted answers, knew exactly what he wanted answers about, and though I find Klosterman more than a bit cocky about his own musings, he is more curious than conceited about getting answers from anyone who is willing to talk to him. I feel that whoever has the ability to support himself or herself under Klosterman's approach of the Spanish Inquisition is already a great and deep thinker just like Chuck which is why most people are intrigued enough to read his work. Whether you like his opinions (or style) or not, almost everyone wants to find out what ridiculous questions he has ready for his interviewing prey. It makes him lucidly enigmatic. People know he won't beat around the bush and usually people like straightforwardness. Like Errol Morris' list of interviewees on First Person, Chuck usually finds these larger than life people to talk to. It's a dynamic concept mostly because he can get those people to talk to him. That works to his advantage.

Something Instead of Nothing

This article is quite profound in the respect that no matter the amount nor content of questions being asked, nothing is really accomplished. We try to seek truth through questions, but when it comes to journalism and interviewing, what is the real point? What is the point of asking stupid questions? Is it because of an insatiable need to know? I certainly think so. The author makes a valid point that in order to fully understand the complexities of the world, we need to know what others' perceptions are. By knowing how other people see the world, a reality is unanimously created. What is real is beyond me, but when understanding what is real in other peoples' lives, a piece of theirs becomes mine. Whether or not I want to accept it or agree with it, is up to me. Sometimes though you have to sit back and look at the big picture. You have to manifest yourself within the other person in order to achieve a certain knowledge that ultimately forms your own reality. It forms your identity. Once you've understood the experience of interviewing, whether it's pointless or not, you've learned something about not only the interviewee, but yourself as well. I feel that that is ultimately the point of interviewing. As quoted in the article, "We have to do it, because it's better than nothing". Asking questions and answering questions may be pointless in the respect that nothing is physically accomplished, but knowledge is at least something.