<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bloggingheads with Douthat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:27:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197610</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 02:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197610</guid>
		<description>joel, thanks for the tips, especially the fassbinder one ... nick, thanks too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>joel, thanks for the tips, especially the fassbinder one &#8230; nick, thanks too.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maria</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197530</link>
		<dc:creator>Maria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 13:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197530</guid>
		<description>On a very long video conference this morning, I was reminded of Philip K. Dick&#039;s description of stark nekked future-people using video-phones - the idea being that they don&#039;t mind answering the video phone in the nip, because it&#039;s just a representation, but would never answer the door like that. I&#039;m kind of glad that idea didn&#039;t catch on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>On a very long video conference this morning, I was reminded of Philip K. Dick&#8217;s description of stark nekked future-people using video-phones &#8211; the idea being that they don&#8217;t mind answering the video phone in the nip, because it&#8217;s just a representation, but would never answer the door like that. I&#8217;m kind of glad that idea didn&#8217;t catch on.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maria</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197528</link>
		<dc:creator>Maria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 13:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197528</guid>
		<description>Actually, I think part of the general awkwardness of the blogging heads formula is that it&#039;s a new-ish form which hasn&#039;t yet developed its own &#039;grammar of the edit&#039;. 

If you were doing a piece to camera or a tv interview in a remote studio, you&#039;d be looking right into the camera for the whole piece. But blogging heads is much longer than one of those so it&#039;s awkward to do that for a very long time. Also, with the split screen mode that viewers watch a talking heads in, they perceive you looking at them, i.e. the camera as a proxy for you looking at the other talking head. You, otoh, are sitting in your office feeling silly for looking at a tiny camera for an hour. 

I expect that as we all get more used to watching these things, it&#039;ll be easier to participate in one whilst perceiving your own interaction as the viewer might. And norms of how you behave on something that&#039;s like tv, but is not tv will probably evolve as well. 

Though the compulsive sidebar reading doesn&#039;t help, either - symptomatic of our age though it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Actually, I think part of the general awkwardness of the blogging heads formula is that it&#8217;s a new-ish form which hasn&#8217;t yet developed its own &#8216;grammar of the edit&#8217;.</p>

	<p>If you were doing a piece to camera or a tv interview in a remote studio, you&#8217;d be looking right into the camera for the whole piece. But blogging heads is much longer than one of those so it&#8217;s awkward to do that for a very long time. Also, with the split screen mode that viewers watch a talking heads in, they perceive you looking at them, i.e. the camera as a proxy for you looking at the other talking head. You, otoh, are sitting in your office feeling silly for looking at a tiny camera for an hour.</p>

	<p>I expect that as we all get more used to watching these things, it&#8217;ll be easier to participate in one whilst perceiving your own interaction as the viewer might. And norms of how you behave on something that&#8217;s like tv, but is not tv will probably evolve as well.</p>

	<p>Though the compulsive sidebar reading doesn&#8217;t help, either &#8211; symptomatic of our age though it is.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maria</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197527</link>
		<dc:creator>Maria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 13:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197527</guid>
		<description>Nice haircut.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Nice haircut.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nick s</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197495</link>
		<dc:creator>nick s</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 04:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197495</guid>
		<description>I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000048.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this is the DeLong link&lt;/a&gt;, which essentially says &#039;30 second answers, and talk to the camera as if it&#039;s a person&#039;.

I noticed that last year&#039;s YearlyKos had a panel on doing television guest spots, which got jumped upon as fakery. But it&#039;s clear that liberal guests generally don&#039;t have the chops that are obviously taught in places like Morton Blackwell&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/25/blackwell/index_np.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leadership Institute&lt;/a&gt;.

Might I suggest, if you have a DV cam with sufficient bandwidth, hooking that up instead? Or putting the webcam in a black shoebox that looks like a camera?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I think <a href="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000048.html" rel="nofollow">this is the DeLong link</a>, which essentially says &#8216;30 second answers, and talk to the camera as if it&#8217;s a person&#8217;.</p>

	<p>I noticed that last year&#8217;s YearlyKos had a panel on doing television guest spots, which got jumped upon as fakery. But it&#8217;s clear that liberal guests generally don&#8217;t have the chops that are obviously taught in places like Morton Blackwell&#8217;s <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/25/blackwell/index_np.html" rel="nofollow">Leadership Institute</a>.</p>

	<p>Might I suggest, if you have a DV cam with sufficient bandwidth, hooking that up instead? Or putting the webcam in a black shoebox that looks like a camera?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieran Healy</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197468</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieran Healy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 20:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197468</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;interruption is considered pretty rude in a seminar&lt;/em&gt;

You should give a talk in the economics dept or the business school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><em>interruption is considered pretty rude in a seminar</em></p>

	<p>You should give a talk in the economics dept or the business school.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sk</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197443</link>
		<dc:creator>Sk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 17:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197443</guid>
		<description>Really?  You spent an hour criticizing the state of American conservatism?  Why the sudden branching out?

Sk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Really?  You spent an hour criticizing the state of American conservatism?  Why the sudden branching out?</p>

	<p>Sk</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Turnipseed</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197435</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel Turnipseed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 16:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197435</guid>
		<description>Henry,

I seem to remember getting savaged for providing talking points from my own (truly helpful) media training/experience here before, but here goes:

1) Practice, practice, practice saying what you want to say in a few short sentences. Then use the responses you&#039;ve articulated in practice as a kind of &quot;answer jukebox.&quot; This doesn&#039;t mean you have to go all White House Spokesman in giving pat answers, but it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; mean that you&#039;ve a) already practiced at delivering concise answers to questions and b) you&#039;re better able to craft linking statements/redirections/clarifications that build around those to answer questions in an articulate manner without a lot of &quot;umming&quot; and &quot;awing.&quot;

2) Be attentive to the format. While I&#039;ll never do a morning shock jock show again, there&#039;s a big difference between the local market news segment and the hour-long NPR interview.

3) Prepare to be thrown a curve ball, asked stupid questions, etcetera. Some of my &lt;em&gt;worst&lt;/em&gt; performances came when I rebelled (at least internally) against perceived slights, imcomprehension, etcetera. Watching The Colbert Report is instructive in this regard: the best guests do one of two things: stick to their guns with a zen-like aplomb or, if they&#039;re fast on their feet, run with the Colbert Schtick. Still, the host is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; at an advantage, since the show is their format and a format they&#039;ve likely spent years (if not decades) learning. The Colbert-Penn &quot;Metafreeforall&quot; was a good case in point: Penn actually looked stiff and amateurish compared to Colbert--and he&#039;s a &lt;em&gt;pro&lt;/em&gt;.

4) Pay attention to pre-interviews! The questions the producers are asking you are a key to what they&#039;re looking for in a show. 

5) Expect that you&#039;re playing, if you&#039;re playing it, the mass media game. If you don&#039;t like it, you don&#039;t have to do it. But if you&#039;re invited on a show, you were probably invited on for a reason (that is, you&#039;re playing a &lt;em&gt;role&lt;/em&gt;)--to the extent that you can shape that role to what you have to say (and vice-versa), you&#039;ll come off looking professional and intelligent (rather than, say, squirrely). Participating in the mass media can be a truly frustrating, undignified business: Sitting in satellite hook-up sets for half an hour in make-up and then getting bumped, being asked questions that seem (are!) astoundingly stupid and ill-informed, being given &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; time for second or ancillary thoughts, etcetera--all things that should never happen in civilized discourse. But mass media isn&#039;t civilized discourse: it&#039;s an incredibly expensive, complex, chaotic &lt;em&gt;business&lt;/em&gt;.

6) Never, ever, never interject jokes about Fassbinder films into mass media interviews (or, for that matter, try to explain Socrates&#039; Unity of the Virtues thesis to a NYT reporter).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Henry,</p>

	<p>I seem to remember getting savaged for providing talking points from my own (truly helpful) media training/experience here before, but here goes:</p>

	<p>1) Practice, practice, practice saying what you want to say in a few short sentences. Then use the responses you&#8217;ve articulated in practice as a kind of &#8220;answer jukebox.&#8221; This doesn&#8217;t mean you have to go all White House Spokesman in giving pat answers, but it <em>does</em> mean that you&#8217;ve a) already practiced at delivering concise answers to questions and b) you&#8217;re better able to craft linking statements/redirections/clarifications that build around those to answer questions in an articulate manner without a lot of &#8220;umming&#8221; and &#8220;awing.&#8221;</p>

	<p>2) Be attentive to the format. While I&#8217;ll never do a morning shock jock show again, there&#8217;s a big difference between the local market news segment and the hour-long <span class="caps">NPR</span> interview.</p>

	<p>3) Prepare to be thrown a curve ball, asked stupid questions, etcetera. Some of my <em>worst</em> performances came when I rebelled (at least internally) against perceived slights, imcomprehension, etcetera. Watching The Colbert Report is instructive in this regard: the best guests do one of two things: stick to their guns with a zen-like aplomb or, if they&#8217;re fast on their feet, run with the Colbert Schtick. Still, the host is <em>always</em> at an advantage, since the show is their format and a format they&#8217;ve likely spent years (if not decades) learning. The Colbert-Penn &#8220;Metafreeforall&#8221; was a good case in point: Penn actually looked stiff and amateurish compared to Colbert&#8212;and he&#8217;s a <em>pro</em>.</p>

	<p>4) Pay attention to pre-interviews! The questions the producers are asking you are a key to what they&#8217;re looking for in a show.</p>

	<p>5) Expect that you&#8217;re playing, if you&#8217;re playing it, the mass media game. If you don&#8217;t like it, you don&#8217;t have to do it. But if you&#8217;re invited on a show, you were probably invited on for a reason (that is, you&#8217;re playing a <em>role</em>)&#8212;to the extent that you can shape that role to what you have to say (and vice-versa), you&#8217;ll come off looking professional and intelligent (rather than, say, squirrely). Participating in the mass media can be a truly frustrating, undignified business: Sitting in satellite hook-up sets for half an hour in make-up and then getting bumped, being asked questions that seem (are!) astoundingly stupid and ill-informed, being given <em>no</em> time for second or ancillary thoughts, etcetera&#8212;all things that should never happen in civilized discourse. But mass media isn&#8217;t civilized discourse: it&#8217;s an incredibly expensive, complex, chaotic <em>business</em>.</p>

	<p>6) Never, ever, never interject jokes about Fassbinder films into mass media interviews (or, for that matter, try to explain Socrates&#8217; Unity of the Virtues thesis to a <span class="caps">NYT</span> reporter).</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex R</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197430</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 15:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197430</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://grammarpolice.net/archives/001221.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bring Back Free Clicking!&lt;/a&gt;

(FWIW, you can restore free clicking by blocking the following page in something like AdBlock: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://grammarpolice.net/archives/001221.php" rel="nofollow">Bring Back Free Clicking!</a></p>

	<p>(FWIW, you can restore free clicking by blocking the following page in something like AdBlock: <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js" rel="nofollow">http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js</a> )</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Kotsko</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/comment-page-1/#comment-197429</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Kotsko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 15:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/23/bloggingheads-with-douthat/#comment-197429</guid>
		<description>We need to start a letter-writing campaign about the NY Times &quot;dictionary&quot; feature.  They already have links to news stories for certain names (including overly broad ones like &quot;Republican&quot;), which makes it even more redundant and annoying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>We need to start a letter-writing campaign about the <span class="caps">NY </span>Times &#8220;dictionary&#8221; feature.  They already have links to news stories for certain names (including overly broad ones like &#8220;Republican&#8221;), which makes it even more redundant and annoying.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: crookedtimber.org @ 2012-02-13 07:57:09 -->
