moqui
generational talent
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,094
- Like
- 25,581
you mean the kid who started 119 games & the final 86 consecutively?.hello tyler roberson.
that was one long leash . . .
you mean the kid who started 119 games & the final 86 consecutively?.hello tyler roberson.
he was never "benched"you meant to say ALL TIME BEST rebounding seasons ever . players get benched on their coaches whim.
nice theory . . . except it didn't happen that way. axe was going for a softball intro, but jb said the hell with that and came right at him. to my ears, axe was back on his heels for the entire time
but he was on his heels the entire interview, he didn't draw anything out, just an elongation of the very same point for the entire allotted length. jb made the point he wanted to make and avoided everything else. he was in complete control. axe was the one who got sucked in, not jb. i think it's hilarious that you think he was the puppeteer here.Ever do an interview for publication or broadcast? I have -- hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the IT industry. If you think JB is confrontational, try interviewing Steve Jobs or Bill Gates after you've written a piece about them. JB is an amateur by comparison. (Gates once yelled directly in my face during an interview after I asked him a question about Windows 3 but he ended up telling me that Microsoft tithed every computer maker that used its operating system, which, at the time no one knew). Interview 101 is to introduce the interview with a softball. Interview 102 is you want your subject to come at you. If your subject comes right at you like JB did, you know there's material on his mind he wants to talk about. You want him to scold you. It's the point. Interview 103 is if you backpedal but keep your point you draw your subject with you, hence more info. Axe has done hundreds of these. He knew what he was doing. It's not personal with him or JB, it's just business.
but he was on his heels the entire interview, he didn't draw anything out, just an elongation of the very same point for the entire allotted length. jb made the point he wanted to make and avoided everything else. he was in complete control. axe was the one who got sucked in, not jb. i think it's hilarious that you think he was the puppeteer here.
i get that you want to defend your fellow journalist (and the profession writ large), but from the listener's point of view, it was a waste of time. there was a lot to hear about the prior night's performances; axe didn't get to ask & we didn't get to hear any of it.
From an informational standpoint you are correct. From an entertainment standpoint, it was better than the last 10 boeheim/axe convos combined. At this point in my life I’ll take the latter.i think there was a lot to hear about the prior night's performances; axe didn't get to ask & we didn't get to hear any of it.
Axe is trying to find relevance and if he's his attempts, feeble as they may be, causes JB some angst. Too bad. JB steamrolls local media he deserves an occasional grilling.
Ever do an interview for publication or broadcast? I have -- hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the IT industry. If you think JB is confrontational, try interviewing Steve Jobs or Bill Gates after you've written a piece about them. JB is an amateur by comparison. (Gates once yelled directly in my face during an interview after I asked him a question about Windows 3 but he ended up telling me that Microsoft tithed every computer maker that used its operating system, which, at the time no one knew). Interview 101 is to introduce the interview with a softball. Interview 102 is you want your subject to come at you. If your subject comes right at you like JB did, you know there's material on his mind he wants to talk about. You want him to scold you. It's the point. Interview 103 is if you backpedal but keep your point you draw your subject with you, hence more info. Axe has done hundreds of these. He knew what he was doing. It's not personal with him or JB, it's just business.
actually, you were the one who claimed that axe was pulling jb's strings and drawing out additional info. but to my ears it was quite the opposite. jb was in control of what info got out, and it was minimal. a smart interviewer would have surrendered the point and tried to move on, but axe was determined to win the point and wasted ten minutes on itYou miss the point. An interview isn't a discussion. You look at it as who had the advantage in the conversation and make your conclusion about who's the puppet and who's in control. Trouble is you have no idea what you're talking about.
actually, you were the one who claimed that axe was pulling jb's strings and drawing out additional info. but to my ears it was quite the opposite. jb was in control of what info got out, and it was minimal. a smart interviewer would have surrendered the point and tried to move on, but axe was determined to win the point and wasted ten minutes on it
i consult on social science research methodology and have been constructing interview protocols for years. the kind that are designed to draw out even deeply hidden informationYou were doing okay until you got to the part of what a smart interviewer would do. So, you know this from your vast experience? I'm guessing your conclusions are those of a consumer not someone who's ever constructed an interview. You could reasonably say the interview wasn't of interest to you, as you have, but knowing what a smart interviewer should and shouldn't do, you're in water over your head there. Actually, it's ironic that you're doing the same as what you accuse Axe of doing, intent upon winning a point about which you're uninformed rather than moving on.