I have a sense that it makes people deeply uneasy to see their opponents as human beings and, in a strange way, even fun-house mirror images in their all-too-familiar determination to demonize and dehumanize The Other. Your unwillingness to quite see "them" as THEM!!—the giant ant aliens in the 1954 horror movie—therefore troubles those on "our" side,, shakes the surety of their worldview. You cannot explore and reveal what REALLY drives, frightens, and inspires people on The Other Side unless you can earn their respect and trust (by respecting them) even as they know they will not win you over. It's brave and important work you're doing precisely because you're not standing on the safe shore of righteous unanimity and shaking your finger across the chasm.
Laura, I’ve been a witness to your work since Portland, and I only ever have but one opinion of it: I don’t know how you do it. How you wade into the cesspits of this country to show the rest of us what’s really down there. They can’t pay you enough. A surgeon, who saws through blood and bone, fecal matter and mucus, to save a patient, has financial reward and the respect of the community waiting. Perhaps, someday, hopefully, you’ll be recognized for your service, too. Until then, I’ll wince and listen, and wonder how you do it.
In my mind, there is a time and place for different journalistic tactics. In a situation like the one you wrote about, anything that's viewed by that group as confrontational will just result in the end of useful discussion. To get the subjects to engage, you have to walk that line and seem at least potentially sympathetic.
We all want that cinematic confrontation where the interviewer calls the interviewee out to defend their opinions and their actions - we all want that Frost-Nixon moment. The thing is, that's a very different situation. The solo interview is where that can work. Out in the field that's a pipe dream.
I apologize for my past praise of your writing, and the future praise which I will be unable to suppress. Regardless, you have developed your ability to meet people where they’re at and report their feelings without rancor. That alone makes you a good journalist. You also have a fresh raw voice and an ear for metaphor that makes you fun to read.
No stop it! I'm talking about my weird inner neuroses not casting aspersions on the nice people who like the things I write. I do sincerely appreciate the positive feedback -- more than I should, like I said. And I have definitely appreciated yours.
I have a sense that it makes people deeply uneasy to see their opponents as human beings and, in a strange way, even fun-house mirror images in their all-too-familiar determination to demonize and dehumanize The Other. Your unwillingness to quite see "them" as THEM!!—the giant ant aliens in the 1954 horror movie—therefore troubles those on "our" side,, shakes the surety of their worldview. You cannot explore and reveal what REALLY drives, frightens, and inspires people on The Other Side unless you can earn their respect and trust (by respecting them) even as they know they will not win you over. It's brave and important work you're doing precisely because you're not standing on the safe shore of righteous unanimity and shaking your finger across the chasm.
Laura, I’ve been a witness to your work since Portland, and I only ever have but one opinion of it: I don’t know how you do it. How you wade into the cesspits of this country to show the rest of us what’s really down there. They can’t pay you enough. A surgeon, who saws through blood and bone, fecal matter and mucus, to save a patient, has financial reward and the respect of the community waiting. Perhaps, someday, hopefully, you’ll be recognized for your service, too. Until then, I’ll wince and listen, and wonder how you do it.
In my mind, there is a time and place for different journalistic tactics. In a situation like the one you wrote about, anything that's viewed by that group as confrontational will just result in the end of useful discussion. To get the subjects to engage, you have to walk that line and seem at least potentially sympathetic.
We all want that cinematic confrontation where the interviewer calls the interviewee out to defend their opinions and their actions - we all want that Frost-Nixon moment. The thing is, that's a very different situation. The solo interview is where that can work. Out in the field that's a pipe dream.
This exchange was fascinating and reveals your clarity on the purpose of your approach, one that is sorely needed. Thank you!
I apologize for my past praise of your writing, and the future praise which I will be unable to suppress. Regardless, you have developed your ability to meet people where they’re at and report their feelings without rancor. That alone makes you a good journalist. You also have a fresh raw voice and an ear for metaphor that makes you fun to read.
I have some thoughts but will hold them until after part 2. Part 1 is interesting but I prefer to be able to compare and contrast the two parts.
No stop it! I'm talking about my weird inner neuroses not casting aspersions on the nice people who like the things I write. I do sincerely appreciate the positive feedback -- more than I should, like I said. And I have definitely appreciated yours.