Comments:

My Dopey Answers - 2004-11-17 20:55:40
How would you describe your blog?
A quaint little lemonade stand offering what turns out to be colored vinegar.
Why do you do this?
I have no sex life.
What are the benefits of being a blogger?
Free membership (includes 1 complimentary doughnut per visit) to Ypsilanti's First Church of Creationist Hoo-Ha.
What do you write about on your blog?
I write about the universe.
Please tell me about some of the reactions you have received from some of your statements.
Ranges from cuddly affirmations to nuclear meltdowns.
Do you think everyone should blog?
Yes. All citizens should blog. This time-sucking hermit activity, if widespread, would greatly reduce problematic social ills such as marriage.
Is there anything important, that you would like to add?

Anchovy paste spread on toastlets is a surprisingly good breakfast.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

lynne - 2004-11-17 22:51:26
Haw. I got an email from Mr Mann too. I fessed up and admitted that I blogged for the attention.

Anyhow, it is only natural that he would check out your blog. It is one of my favorites, that's for sure!
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Anna - 2004-11-18 09:19:51
Well, it sounds like material for an article or a book. How fun!
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 09:57:12
Lynne: Thank you for such a nice comment. I'm glad Mr. M contacted you--I think you probably have the highest-traffic blog in town, with lots of comments. Wonder who else he contacted.

Anna: thank you for your comment too. I'll post the story when it comes out in the Courier...and probably retract that second answer before that.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Anna - 2004-11-18 10:41:12
Interesting... retract that second comment. That either has to do with your wanting the courier to preserve its fine family values, or a change in your (et hem) status.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 10:53:26
Yikes!--a direct question!--eek!--I meant, retract it due to, ah, umm...Anna!--is that a chickadee on the birdfeeder? Look! C'mon, look, no--over THERE.

Oh, all right. I meant retract it--wait, is that the phone? I'll be right back.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 11:09:44
(sighs) No, I just meant retract it so as to avoid seeming like a coarse, blunt loudmouth, an image which would seriously misrepresent my delicate sensibilities and charmingly modest nature.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

addiann - 2004-11-18 12:43:52
well it was one of my favorites in the lot. If not THE favorite!
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 12:56:48
Oh. Hm. Well, I may as well just leave it as is then. I'm still curious to know who aside from Lynne was targeted by eminent local historian James Mann.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 13:05:03
If some kind readers out there are writers or journalists, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on interviews conducted via email vs. in person. Oh, I have some thoughts on the subject, all right, but would prefer to listen to yours, first.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Anna - 2004-11-18 15:03:14
Well, I've never been the interviewer in an email interview, but I have to say that I VASTLY prefer being the intervee in email interviews. It keeps them from printing my "uh" and "doh"s, and gives me a little time to sound at least semi-literate. In face-to-face or phone interviews it's too easy to just start getting comfy and speaking colloquially, and then end up sounding like a moron.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Anna - 2004-11-18 15:04:49
P.S. I didn't expect you to answer my ridiculously personal question; I was just teasing.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

lynne - 2004-11-18 15:39:05
I think I prefer being interviewed in email. It gave me some time to put at least a little bit of thought into my comments. The only time that I have ever been quoted in the paper was when the Ann Arbor News did a story about that Marsh Plating Plant Chemical spill and I went on and on about how my tulips were all droopy because of it. Later on, I thought "Well Gee, that is stupid, who cares about droopy tulips?
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 15:49:59
Anna: re: personal question: Oh, that's all right, this is blogland--anything goes I suppose [translation: d'oh! too late now!] At any rate. No problem.

I find it very interesting that both you and Lynne prefer email interviewing, as an interview subject.

Lynne: oh, I would care about droopy tulips, for sure. It's a very striking mental image and adds a standout detail to the story.

Now, I'd also like to check people's opinions (before spouting off on my own) about you as interviewer: what method would be better for you? Or, what method is plain better? Do the different methods result in different-sounding text in your eventual story? Which is preferable?
* * * * * * * * * * * *

c.c. - 2004-11-18 16:06:37
i instruct my small stable of contributors to our paper to interview sources face-to-face whenever possible. email interviews are overwhelmingly preferred by both my writers and their sources, but i feel that giving a source time to weigh her words takes some of the truth out of the interview. not that sources are dishonest, but that spontaneity and inflection are part of the truth of an interview. i find that when sources are able to take time to edit an email response, the result is more like a press release and much less like a snapshot of a conversation rich in detail and nuance. personally, i would prefer to be interviewed via email. i had the good fortune to be interviewed for the A2 News' Ypsi Community page several months back. i was a bit shy seeing some of the things i'd mentioned to the journalist (gushing: "my boyfriend is a dj" -how twee!) in print. although i allegedly looked cute in the picture.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 16:18:01
What an interesting and great comment. Thanks c.c. There seem to be a lot of journalists in blogland, unsurprisingly.

Now, I agree with you 100%. I try to always avoid interviewing someone by email, unless its just checking a followup fact.

I see a huge, very palpable difference in the flavor of text generated by email (calculated, precise, sometimes like PR as c.c. said) and the natural, lyrical rhythms of speech. Plus when you're talking with someone you can pounce on interesting points they make--email is static in comparison. And you pick up a lot of information from just watching the face of the interviewee. Overall, prose turns out fresher, more spontaneous, and more informative if it's from a face-to-face interview. Even a phone call is better than email, in my humble.


* * * * * * * * * * * *

Oh, Laura again, she can never shut up - 2004-11-18 16:22:28
(I love the word "twee"!)
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Of course Laura - 2004-11-18 16:29:33
It's a great word, but boy, is it hard to think of a sample sentence using it. Hmm. OK--"When the lightposts at the Henry Ford Museum suddenly spoted jangly ol'-timey banjo music, I thought it a bit twee."

(is that right? I think so.)
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-18 16:53:50
At any rate, the difference in register between emailed (written) and spoken interview responses is so striking that you can pretty much tell every time which one it is, if the text in question is a sentence or longer. Just in my opinion.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

raymond - 2004-11-19 08:06:38
When I interviewed prisoners in the military, e-mail was not an option. I expect in that situation it
(a) still isn't,
(b) wouldn't provide reliable responses, and
(c) is so silly and obvious that why am I mentioning it? e.g.:
Q: Mister bin Laden, are you now or have you ever been a terrorist?
A: Moi?HaHaHaHaHa!

Sometimes I had to e-mail questions to respondents regarding fatal truck crashes. The information sought dealt with physical characteristics of involved vehicles, aspects of operating authorities, and some driver data. While it was all measurable or documentable somehow, language used to describe aspects of vehicles and situations is variable, regional, and miscommunicable. Mouth to ear always generated more reliable reports.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-19 09:03:53
That's an interesting angle on the subject, Raymond; thank you.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

brett - 2004-11-19 09:39:28
since 99% of my communication is done through e-mails, i am of the opinion that it is an excellent method of sending free "letters", but not a replacement for any mode of communication requiring a conversational element. If you have a couple questions you need answered, fine. But if you're trying to ask something that requires immediate follow-up, your lack of being able to read the person's body language will likely cause a break-down in the conversation.

E-mail is a very very bad format for appropriately expressing most emotions, and is especially bad (I've found) when it comes to the matter of being sarcastic or exaggerating something, as with the lack of facial expression to observe the reciever has no way of gauging your seriousness. "Biofeedback", I suppose, is the key ingredient it's missing.

I have a few different e-mail styles i've developed, reserving the 'funny' stuff for people i know very very well; and then generally writing like I'm a robot public relations director to everybody else.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Laura - 2004-11-19 20:20:26
Indeed, I've learned the hard way that humor, or intended humor, can get skewed in email or on a blog and can tick people off. When I was studying teaching-of-english-to-speakers-of-other-languages at EMU, one factoid was that 80% of conversational meaning is communicated via body language.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

add your comment:

your name:
your email:
your url:

back to the entry - Diaryland