Self-Promotion Dept.: My Q&A with Michael Beschloss ran yesterday. It’s a must-read for, well, people deeply interested in the private thoughts of Lyndon Johnson circa 1965. Both of you.
And my Japan story should be in the paper tomorrow or Sunday, so reserve your copy now.
9 thoughts on “ego trip”
Comments are closed.
I enjoyed reading the interview but it is very similar to every interview with Michael Beschloss about his book. I don’t think this is your fault at all. I get the impression these kind of descisions are driven by editors and the readership’s expectations of what’s supposed to be in a Q&A.
Josh, you are way to smart to spend time getting Michael Beschloss to parrot back his standard interview answers. I bet the banter back and forth between you two outside of the Q&A was even better than what made it to the paper.
Questions that I’m curious about are why did he choose to write this book? After listening to all the tapes how did he choose which parts to write about? Was it based on what would be sensational and sell more books or the clips that had more historical merit? I guess I’m really curious about the process Michael Beschloss went through in writing the book and what decisions he made that kept things out.
How does a Q&A work at the Dallas Morning News? Do you and the members of the editorial board decide on all the questions before the Q&A starts? Do you prefer Joshua to Josh? You know, more and more I get the impression that you are too good a journalist for the Dallas Morning News.
Well, any blame for the Q&A should go to me, because what I wrote is pretty much exactly I turned in. But I will say some of the weaknesses you’re talking about are inherent in the format. In a Q&A, you really don’t have much of a chance to provide the background information needed to make a lot of sophisticated questions intelligible. In a regular story, you can have a couple of paragraphs introducing a character or an idea, then have a quote talking about it. With a Q&A, you don’t have that luxury, so sometimes you stick to something more basic. (The same is true of a lot of the process questions you mention — the reader generally has to know what got included and what didn’t before he can learn about the process for their selection, for example.)
That lesson is also clearly something a guy like Beschloss knows, which is why he no doubt has a series of polished anecdotes and wholly-formed thoughts ready for us reporters whenever he talks to us. (Like anyone on a book tour. Or like anyone who goes on TV pretty regularly.) I definitely got the impression Beschloss is a very smart guy committed to sound historical work.
As far as sensationalizing: I can tell you that the book comes with a 6-cd set of LBJ’s recordings, which Beschloss edited down. The first set of tapes on CD 1 is a series of conversations between LBJ and Jackie Kennedy, which a cynic could certainly point to as evidence of putting sensation ahead of historical merit. But it was awfully interesting stuff, and I think certainly worthy of conclusion. And as a old history major, anything that draws people into a serious work of history is, I think, a good thing.
Re: Q&A logistics: they’re sometimes done with the editorial board present, sometimes just with a reporter. When it’s with the edit board, the reporters is really just sitting back and recording what others say, perhaps with an occasional interjection. That’s not a bad thing, by the way: the editorial board is filled with smart, informed people. But it can make it harder to edit down a Q&A into something coherent, because you have five or six people’s trains of thought all in one interview. So you sometimes end up being drawn to more basic questions in editing.
And finally, I’ve always been Joshua in print, Josh in person. No real reason, except I think “Joshua Benton” has a nice symmetry in print that “Josh Benton” doesn’t. And there’s no way I’m too good for the DMN; there are way too many brilliant, talented people here for me or anyone else to think such a thing.
HA!
(sorry, did I say that out loud??)
HA!
(sorry, did I say that out loud??)
yep, you did — twice, in fact…
First off, let me state that I do not feel the weaknesses in the article are your fault. I think my frustrations lie solely with the restrictions of the Q&A format. It seems like it would be a lot less time consuming for the writer if one Q&A was put out by the publisher for each book. It seems redundant to carry basically the same Q&A in print and radio mediums the world over. I guess what it comes down to is what’s the difference between a Q&A and the blurbs that go into the dust jacket or the marketing material the publisher puts out?
Regarding the brilliance of the DMN editorial board and your humility, I wasn’t trying to tear the DMN down. It is certainly one of the top papers in the country. I was trying to build you up. Considering your own brilliance it seems like the DMN could have gotten a much cooler piece if it was a dialog between you and the good doctor. I totally felt like you were hemmed in by the restrictions of the Q&A format and I wanted to see where you would have taken the piece with more creative leeway. (Maybe you should have tried to snag a crabwalk.com exclusive.)
Oh and I’m definitely looking forward to reading the Japan story…please post a link to it if you can.
Well, there’s by necessity a lot of duplication in media. Why have 100 reporters cover a Taliban press conference in Peshawar, when they could have just written up a summary of their position and faxed it to the world’s media? Now, a LBJ Q&A ain’t war coverage, and the Q&A is restrictive, but it’s good to have someone there with a pen in hand if someone suddenly wants to spill his guts.
But remember that, for its flaws, the Q&A also has strengths. It’s much more transparent than most forms, and (when done right, which it probably wasn’t here) it does a better job of showing the give and take of journalism than a straight up news story does.
And a Q&A can solve one of the most maddening problems with daily journalism, which is that no matter how interesting a story may be, you generally need some sort of event/issue hook to justify putting it in the paper. A Q&A, because of its form, can tackle a subject that’s a little more off-center.
FYI, the Japan story’s apparently running on Wednesday’s front page.
JJ wrote: And a Q&A can solve one of the most maddening problems with daily journalism, which is that no matter how interesting a story may be, you generally need some sort of event/issue hook to justify putting it in the paper. A Q&A, because of its form, can tackle a subject that’s a little more off-center.
I’ll add: Agreed that the Q&A has its place. Because of its nature, the journalist has a subject that is prepared to adhere to a certain standard of question-answering. In other words, the writer/producer (which I was/am so I’ll write from that perspective) has a captive audience that understands that even if one ducks a question, the journalist is not going anywhere. There’s no “I have to hit the showers (sports) or catch a plane (politics).”
If in the right medium (TV, for example), one can even see the feelings the interviewee has on a particular subject.
And that’s on top of the fact that Q&A sessions are just that. An answer leads to the next question, which allows for the flexibility not seen in press conferences or releases (gag).