[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.