politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So uh, I went to school for audio production, while I didn't pursue that career path all of my friends from college are currently in the AV industry, senior AV admins for companies ranging from Amazon to radio. I have a personal recording setup that I am teaching my daughter Reaper with. I have an intimate understanding of what it takes. ROFL at you listing pricing as if that is relevant to the conversation at hand.
Is my understanding of your point that it's very hard to manage interviews, so much so that if you have the opportunity to interview the President of the United States you need assistance planning the questions because of your oh so busy schedule? The more you talk the less credible your argument becomes.
Also 95% of what you typed out doesn't matter in a professional setting as the person doing the interview is not the producer or the engineer. Just utterly irrelevant.
Yeah, same.
The price breakdown was to help you or anyone else who thinks they know what's up get a handle on how quickly you can attempt to actually do the work. Sure, the interviewer could only be setting up interviews, but there's a whole slew of things going on in production. And some people have no goddamned clue of that, and like to make little quips about changing how it works. Well, they can drop a few hundred and see how to do it themselves, instead of being armchair producers.
My whole message was an encompassing of the idea that TIME is the limiting factor. A person like the president isn't going to have the same amount of time as say, your sister. So there's going to be more pre-production, and that includes Q&A. Any idiot worth their salt is going to have prepared questions for the guest, and many times, they're going to be giving their guest either A) a general idea of those questions, or B) a list of acceptable questions. Interviewees no matter who they are don't have to answer questions they don't want to answer. And the president is going to answer even fewer than that because of potential issues of national security, et al.
You don't think I know what I'm talking about, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. See how that goes both ways?
Have the day you deserve.
And again, this detracts from the conversation at hand because the topic is about the inverse, the guest giving the prepared questions to the host. At that point it's not an interview, but a press conference disguised as one.
When the point of the interview is damage control for his ability to think on his feet, do you understand how it doesn't accomplish the goal of damage control, regardless of the current campaign culture?