Washington Post does first Paterno interview following Sanduskygate

[JackReacher]

Two things surprised me here:
1. According to the Q&A, Jenkins only got about 40-45 minutes with Paterno. Someone on the board said earlier that she must have transcribed hours of interview. And by the looks of her story, it seemed like she talked to him for hours. Whether she was soft or not, she got a lot of good content in a short matter of time.

2. She didn't seem too confident in herself in the Q&A. I'm glad I've never had to do a Q&A where readers get to grill me about my work. It's not an easy thing to do, I'm sure. But I think I would at least defend my work and sell it as the best work I could have done and not "let the readers decide whether I succeeded or failed."

A lot of good content?

 

[Hoos3725]

Two things surprised me here:
1. According to the Q&A, Jenkins only got about 40-45 minutes with Paterno. Someone on the board said earlier that she must have transcribed hours of interview. And by the looks of her story, it seemed like she talked to him for hours. Whether she was soft or not, she got a lot of good content in a short matter of time.

2. She didn't seem too confident in herself in the Q&A. I'm glad I've never had to do a Q&A where readers get to grill me about my work. It's not an easy thing to do, I'm sure. But I think I would at least defend my work and sell it as the best work I could have done and not "let the readers decide whether I succeeded or failed."

A lot of good content?

Sure. She wrote a 75 inch (just a wild guess) story on a 45 minute interview. And she did the whole thing in two days.

 

[Kid Presentable]

That story was loaded with pure garbage, from the over-written fluff lead to the convenient half-truths and excuses spewed by Paterno, which weren't challenged by the writer. I thought Sally Jenkins was better than that.

 

[JackReacher]

Two things surprised me here:
1. According to the Q&A, Jenkins only got about 40-45 minutes with Paterno. Someone on the board said earlier that she must have transcribed hours of interview. And by the looks of her story, it seemed like she talked to him for hours. Whether she was soft or not, she got a lot of good content in a short matter of time.

2. She didn't seem too confident in herself in the Q&A. I'm glad I've never had to do a Q&A where readers get to grill me about my work. It's not an easy thing to do, I'm sure. But I think I would at least defend my work and sell it as the best work I could have done and not "let the readers decide whether I succeeded or failed."

A lot of good content?

Sure. She wrote a 75 inch (just a wild guess) story on a 45 minute interview. And she did the whole thing in two days.

There was a lot of content, I agree.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The length of the story in and of itself is not an indication of its greatness.

“I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.” -- French philosopher Blaise Pascal

 

[jr/shotglass]

You'ns listen now. He's a-quotin' French fil-os-o-fers.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I was just editing a trade magazine, of all things, that used that quote attributed to Mark Twain. Since every passage ever written is eventually attributed to Mark Twain, I had to research it. Stuck with me as I have read Grantland

 

[jr/shotglass]

Ahhhh.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

IMO there are two approaches to the initial interview with a disgraced or semi-disgraced public figure, especially one still in possible legal jeopardy.
1. The public prosecutor without subpeona power approach. Grill 'em. Advantages: Sometimes public figure gets flustered and blurts out revealing truths. Other people in journalism approve of your methods. Disadvantage: Most often they don't.
2. The celebrity TV interview approach. Just keep the subject talking through any means necessary, particularly nonthreatening questions. Advantages: Sometimes the subject reveals far more than they think they have. Disadvantages: Many times subject keeps control of the interview. Other journalists will ***** you blew the interview through undue deference.

Jenkins, whose reporting credentials are beyond dispute, chose option two. IMO, Paterno did not come off well in the interview at all, so Jenkins choice DID reveal some information the public ought to know. But it's not Perry Mason. Public figures seldom confess until AFTER they're under some form of legal duress. I think much of the criticism here ignores that fact.