[MBCook]

The woman doing the interview really seems to do a poor job.

She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point. It doesn't sound like she's actually listening to his answers, just going down her checklist. At one point he explains why he liked Sorkin's approach better than Kutcher's, then she asked a later question as if he had never said that.

It's kind of sad. Woz mentioned numerous times that the problem was showing the pre-firing Jobs behaving and being treated more like he was after having matured, but the interviewer just didn't get it.

She also asked quite a few questions designed in a "X vs. Y, choose now!" style, trying to get a soundbite or setup a narrative (Woz wisely wouldn't fall for it). Between that and the interrupting, it was actually kind of hard to listen to.

Missed opportunities, I guess.

[onli]

Absolutely disagree. In my opinion, she does a good job in guiding Wozniak through the interview while still being respectful. Yes, it is obvious that she wanted to have some specific questions answered, but that is nothing bad, it prevents people from rambling and makes the interview interesting. And it wasn't my impression that she interrupted mid-sentence or even just often.

How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point? Didn't she even react to that with the "is he too visionary in the movie" question line?

[MBCook]

Woz definitely need to be guided, there were some times it was appropriate. He's clearly the kind of person who could talk about any question for 15 minutes. I've seen interviewers do a good job without sounding rushed and forced, that was what grabbed me. I hear interviews on The Daily Show, NPR, local talk shows, even entertainment shows where the host was part of the interview. Where they worked with the subject. I have heard some very hostile interviews with people in politics where the host is clearly pissed at the question dodging and double talk. But they have some sort of respect for the person they're talking to, they at least sound like they are trying to talk to the person. This sounded hollow, like she was just trying to get through it so she could get on to the next segment... just routine 'interview X for 5 minutes'. She knew who he was, and it's not like she was hostile.

> How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point?

Maybe she did. But it didn't seem to influence the questions she asked. I felt like they could have taped both sides of the interview separately and then just spliced it together. There were almost no follow-up questions, it sounded like she could have ended every part with "Thank you, next question." She asked him some base question and he explained the difference between Sorkin's and Kutcher's approaches. Ten minutes later she asked that very question, without even acknowledging that she already had the answer. Instead of "You touched on the difference in Sorkin's style, could you tell us more..." it was "I hear your working with Sorkin. How did that compare." It gave the impression she wasn't really paying attention to her own interview.

My impression was the whole thing was set out before it started. She had her angle, and she just kept trying to get there. To get him to trash someone, to say the movie was a travesty, to bait him with "is Apple doomed?" again, or to just finish it up and get onto the next segment. No engagement, no feeling, no heart... just hollowness and a missed opportunity.

[6d0debc071]

She talked too long to try to narrow him down certain pathways, there are points where she asks something and then goes on while he's trying to answer. Wanted to have a very different discussion to the one he wanted to have I think.

There are certainly points where he was running on a bit, but it wasn't a good conversation. Very clash of personalities rather than giving someone a topic to talk about and moving on when they've said what they have to say.

Part of that's probably that she just seemed to have a list of fairly specific questions she wanted to run through - which is a terrible way to talk to anyone, especially if you've not done your research into how they like to talk and what they're going to want to talk about properly.

[coherentpony]

>The woman doing the interview really seems to do a poor job. She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point.

This is a property of American media. When people start talking over each other, I stop watching. I can't take it.

Conversations and interviews are like a game. Each person makes their turn; the next person only gets to go when the current player finishes their turn.

The British media is a little better at this, and I'm talking mainly about BBC News, but it's still not perfect. In fact, you can see the mockery of this in The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert frequently talks over his interviewees; it's part of his character and it hits the nail right on the head.

[gizzlon]

Agree, but sometimes it necessary to cut people off. For example when people just keep talking or when politicians refuse to answer the actual question.

[dizzystar]

I was expecting an utter disaster, but I don't really agree she did this. Woz is always a great interview subject, but he tends to ramble and go into odd-ball directions. I'm not an interviewing expert, but I can't imagine it is easy to steer an interview with someone like Woz.

She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.

[MBCook]

I think you're right about interviewing Woz. I've seen interviews with him before and I'm sure he's a challenge.

> She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe Woz just isn't someone who can really be interviewed well in a short segment on live TV. If they had taped it they could have edited down his answers or organized it better. Maybe she just had a really difficult job to do on this one.

[bredren]

If you think this was rough, watch her attempt to interview PG: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/71010068-y-combinator-founder...

[MBCook]

First, I never realized I had no idea what PG looked like.

Bub wow are you right. She is really pushing a possible story with each question. It's interesting she seem to be getting facts wrong. She isn't stepping over PG though, so that's obvious just trying to keep Woz on topic.

The guy who joins in (wasn't watching at the moment, so I missed his name), he sounds like he's genuinely interested in what PG is saying. He's not as polished, but he's doing a better job.

Edit: Just finished watching it. The other gentleman is Cory Johnson, and he's a very good interviewer. He continued to outside Emily Chang throughout the video, asking insightful questions in response to what PG said.

[nashequilibrium]

Thanks, i have never seen this interview and i watch bwest clips often.

[phaus]

I haven't seen the movie, but wasn't Jobs' personality pretty much the same throughout his life?

I've read a few different articles where they claimed that when he worked at Atari, they created a shift just for him because no one could stand to work around him. Supposedly it was because he was an unwashed hippie, but I'm inclined to think that Atari's entire staff was made up of unwashed hippies during this time period, so it must have been his personality.

[SurfScore]

He matured as he got older, as Woz said. Getting forced out of Apple was a pretty humbling experience. His time at NeXT and Pixar helped as well. And just plain getting older...

[snowwrestler]

No one's personality is the same throughout their life. As we each experience new things, we change to take them into account.

In this case, Woz is saying that the movie portrays Jobs as being a lot more focused, capable, and charismatic than he actually was as a young man. Letting the present color our view of the past is an easy story-telling trap to fall into.

[wusher]

I completely agree. I felt she wanted a certain answer to some of the questions. When it became clear that he wasn't going to give her that answer, she would cut him off and ask another question. I felt she was rude, but also indicative of the current mainstream media.

[guidopallemans]

I didn't have that feeling at all. At times (one of the first questions - How did Ashton do it as an actor?), he just keeps telling about how Steve Jobs was different before he got away, and the interviewer did a good job trying to steer the interview in the direction of the questions.

If she was indeed like you said she was, she'd push on through the "no comment" on the question about the movie Woz's making, or the question "Should we see the movie?", or...

[jmomo]

This is just the way Bloomberg does it's interviews: breathless high-anxiety no-thinking-allowed Q&A SECTOR SPIDER TIME FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GET YOUR BLOOMBERG RADIO APP FREE FOR ANDROID AND IPHONE COMMERCIALS in between paid-shills for various financial products.

[asgard1024]

True, but the interview was still very interesting, I enjoyed it.

[jkuria]

I completely agree and I had to come back here to express my disgust. She is really irritating me the way she cuts him off with comments that show she isn't listening (or she is too stupid to understand what he is saying). Example: He says Steve Jobs initially was visionary but not good at executing. But when he came back he had improved at execution and had the maturity to run things. She retorts "was he visionary?"

She also talks down at him and acts like she is more important than him.

[patcon]

Specifically came into the comments to say the same thing. She dripped insincerity.

[nooron]

It made me uncomfortable to watch.

[RockyMcNuts]

well, if you think this is bad, don't turn on CNBC, or Fox.