When the debate came up at this morning’s editorial staff meeting, pretty much everybody in the room said they liked the format, thought it was a refreshing, an improvement on the previous cattle calls, yadda-yadda.
Even Robert Ariail, who hates technology and has probably never gone to YouTube in his life, said he enjoyed it.
In the old days, this sort of general disagreement with my opinion would have been stifling, because we make editorial judgments for the newspaper by consensus, and the consensus was against me.
But nowadays, I have a blog, and they don’t. So there.
Related Posts
I have to agree with your colleagues: I liked it. It wasn’t so much the format of the questions as it was that you knew these were questions from actual people about real concerns they had. I feel that too often the TV media get bogged down on some aspect of the race that they find fascinating but that has little to no relevance in people’s lives.
Oh, Susanna! I agree completely — with what you say about media folk. They just want to play the inside-the-Beltway partisan-fight-of-the-day game.
But you know what probably soured my whole mood on the format? It was that guy with the very first question, which he put in a way that packed in all the obnoxiousness he could muster.
I think I’m influenced less by being a newspaperman here and more by being a parent. I want to say, “Don’t take that tone with me, young man! And sit up straight! What, you couldn’t dress nice to be on TV?” and so forth.