The interviewee wasn’t easy, but she should have known that from the pre-interview meetings she alluded to. And yes, her bizarre flirtatious angle on this was a big part of the problem too. For parts of the interview, she was looking at him aside, twirling her hair, even looking at the floor and talking barely audibly as she swallowed whatever she was saying. Which was always too much to be saying since, no, she was not supposed to be the focus of all this.

But here, I think, is the one real mistake you didn’t directly name — she failed to become fascinated by the subject herself. If there’s one attribute across all great writers and interviewers that stands out, it’s that they are insatiably curious about almost any topic that can be opened up and explored. In short, the writer cares much, about everything. And that passion plus the skill they develop for asking the right questions is what makes them great.

Throughout this whole thing, she didn’t seem to care much at all… about anything but herself and the “hip” impression she hoped to make. In the end (here comes Greek tragedy again) that was the very thing that denied her what she’d hoped for.

Can you tell me which part of my post feels like a spit in the face for you? And which part is over the line?

>>
The audience was full of Web 2.0 fanboys and fangirls. You’re criticizing Sarah because she didn’t please the fanboys and fangirls. But Lacy failed, not because she interrupted, but because she can’t write about Facebook from a social, economic or moral standpoint.

You’re a good evangelist, you use every media opportunity you have to blow the Web 2.0 cause. But you can’t be an evangelist and an honest journalist too. Watch Zachary and Markoff here, you might get what I think the Doctor is talking about.

http://www.crankygeeks.com/2008/01/episode_97_tech_jounalism_at_t.php

I don’t want the “journalism” you want, because it isn’t journalism - it’s suck-up PR.

Is this so hard to understand?
<<

Easy for you to say now.

I don’t know how you know the audience in a situation like this. It’s so diverse, and certainly more outspoken than any other audience. This is why the “conference” setting is so useless, and the BarCamp approach isn’t.

Not listening is just so bad, and fairly typical. Some people just want to be with the cool kids that they try too hard. Intimidation does strange things to people.

Since you’re a journalism teacher, why is this even important to you? Will your journalism students be doing an interview with billionaire in front of techies? No.

Cuban wrote about how bad newspaper bloggers are for the business. Hopefully you’ll address something your students can benefit from.