These interviews are on two very different subjects. I think it's safe to start by pointing out the most fundamental differences and then branch out from there
First off, there is very little to say about embedding journalists because it seems they have little to report. Anytime things get overly exciting, the reports get blurry, so many of the questions can just be answered with an "I can't answer that." There's also the problem of operational security. There are problems with the restrictions that the interview has. The most I got out of it was "Journalists are put in danger and experience maybe too much excitement" We can't make any conclusive statements from this interview.
The McDonalds interview, on the other hand, is very in depth. Ritzer doesn't have any restrictions constricting him from voicing all of the information he has on the subject. The interviewer constructs his questions in a way to either tear down or reinforce Ritzer's points, depending on his ability to answer the questions. His "Iron cages" analogy works well for him when he is challenged with "Do you eat at McDonald's?" I feel like this interview was much better constructed than the previous one and helped provide much more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment