Each day you are required to contribute to the blog. This blog will be used as a supplement to regular writing assignments. Late entries will not be accepted.
Keep all comments appropriate, relevant, and grammatically correct.
Now that you read the Sinatra interview, how have your opinions of what goes into an article changed? What do writers need to capture besides what is said?
If Sinatra didn't talk, did he know that he was being interviewed, and if he is just sitting there minding his own buisness, why is this considered an interview?
Interviewers must capture every sudden blink of an eye. If the actor or even normal person they are interviewing shoots one signal of emiotion, as you can see by the article we just read, could possibly write twenty six pages worth of how someone feels. Interviewers must be inteligent people who are people persons' and are willing to take as much verbal abuse that may be thrown there way...
This is a different interview than any I have read, because it's not about questions, it's a more maybe third person story of how a man can be when he's down and despaired.
it was interesting how the interviewer knew what sinatra was thinking about & why he was in the bad mood. Interviewers don't need to be face to face with the interviee to know whats going on. They have to have there facts straight and try & figure out whats going down in there life
I just found out that they had originally planned an interview but Sinatra was in a bad mood. Still, if he didn't talk, i don't get how this is considered an interview
It takes alot of talent to write a 26 pg interview on someone who doesn't even say a word. Interviews need great detail, and to set the mood. Also they need to describe the interviewee(s) in a way that makes the reader feel a connection or a feeling as though they know the person.
After the Sinatra article, i realized that interviewers and writers also need to capture the setting and the mood of the interview, it definitely makes it a whole lot more interesting than just basic question/answer situation. Describing the setting can help the reader see how the interviewee is feeling and relate to them as much as possible. Although i do agree with what the others said that it was strange of Sinatra to not saying anything, but him not saying anything says basically so much more, actions speak louder than words.
Many people think that interviews only involve asking questions, but after reading the article, I have come to realize that there are other ways to "interview" someone. The interviewer needs to pay attention to their surroundings as well as what is being said or done by the person being interviewed.
I found it very interesting how Sinatra said nothing to the interviewer and yet with Sinatra's actions, he was able to write so much about it. The reporter talked about Sinatra the whole time and could do so because of the way he observed the situation. To me that's very impressive.
"Actions speak louder than words" is what this article is all about. I also find it creepy that this author was creeping on Sinatra for this long of a time period.
when ms.DiMezza read the first pagragh it seemed to me he was a very storborn old man. but as i kept on reading this old man is going though alot seriose yet diffcult siuations, like people depending on him for their own wefare and stabilty thats a huge respondbilty to take. and Sinatra was ill. then i found the deffention to TRIVAL which means he had a dont bother me personality if it has to do with whats going on in my life then putting it on CBS
In an interview, the questions are only half the battle. In this particular interview, the interviewer didn't say one word to Sinatra. Instead, he was smart enough to just observe & see what happens. As apposed to interviewing him with questions, he simply watched his actions. That was clearly enough to write a three page interview about him.
Ryan Connor I thought that this interview was one of the best i have ever read. Instead of a boring question and answer type interview, the writer told a short story about Sinatra. It was really well written and I thought that it was really cool how he could "read" Sinatra and got a lot of good observations that could be interpreted.
The person who wrote this 26 page interview on Sinatra must have had the utmost talent and skill to observe him and write this without hearing him say a word. I can see how he could have done this though. He watched Sinatra's every move in the bar and read his body language to get this information. He set a good mood and attracted the attention of the reader by setting a mysterious tone. It was well written.
The Sinatra article gave me a whole new perspective on interviews. It shows me that you need to set a scene and observe all of the things that are happening even if nothing is said. Like in this interview he doesnt actually get to interveiw him, but we are still intrigued because of the way that he portrays and descibes Sinatra. and by doing this, more people will be interested and want to read it.
There really wasnt an interview, he was just an observer. He watche dlong enough to actually hear him talk. I thought that there needed to be straight Q and A
Ya after reading the article i found out that observing has to do with interviewing. If you cant get enough imformation on what the person said you can write what you think what there thoughts are. Sometimes writing what you think the person is felling and acting is better than what person is saying themself.
I think it is very interesting that Sinatra did not say one word to the interviewer but he still writes a 26 page interview! Alot of the interview was about Sinatra's actions. Very impressive!
Ryan Connor I agree with Andrew when he said "Actions speak louder than words" and if you can write a twenty-six page interview about a man who didn't even talk, then you must know about that saying.
I just think that if your going to interveiw someone 1. ask if they wanna be interviewed. and for the person who is talking about there life make sure theres noones around because people LOVE to change the story around to make you look like the bad person, which happends everywere not only in this article i just think people deseve there space and not have to worry about whats going to happen today or tomarow " thats would be stressfull and overwhelming for me"
This was an interesting interview because the interviewer didn’t actually say anything to Sinatra, from what we could tell. This interviewer was smart and he just observed him closely watching his every mood. This was a different style of interviewing that didn’t actually include talking but still happened to be very effective because after reading the interview I know a lot of information about Sinatra.
Now that you read the Sinatra interview, how have your opinions of what goes into an article changed? What do writers need to capture besides what is said?
ReplyDeletei found it strange that throughout the entire interview sinatra told the interviewer nothing.
ReplyDeleteIf Sinatra didn't talk, did he know that he was being interviewed, and if he is just sitting there minding his own buisness, why is this considered an interview?
ReplyDeleteInterviewers must capture every sudden blink of an eye. If the actor or even normal person they are interviewing shoots one signal of emiotion, as you can see by the article we just read, could possibly write twenty six pages worth of how someone feels. Interviewers must be inteligent people who are people persons' and are willing to take as much verbal abuse that may be thrown there way...
ReplyDeleteThis is a different interview than any I have read, because it's not about questions, it's a more maybe third person story of how a man can be when he's down and despaired.
ReplyDeletei agree with shounak if the person wont talk then how can you interview them
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Sinatra interview, I realized that intervies are not all about asking questions and getting answers.
ReplyDeleteit was interesting how the interviewer knew what sinatra was thinking about & why he was in the bad mood. Interviewers don't need to be face to face with the interviee to know whats going on. They have to have there facts straight and try & figure out whats going down in there life
ReplyDeleteChris I agree, they do need to be able to cope with anything the interviewee throws at them.
ReplyDeleteI just found out that they had originally planned an interview but Sinatra was in a bad mood. Still, if he didn't talk, i don't get how this is considered an interview
ReplyDeletean interviewer not only needs to understand what someone says they also need to capture emotions
ReplyDeleteIt takes alot of talent to write a 26 pg interview on someone who doesn't even say a word. Interviews need great detail, and to set the mood. Also they need to describe the interviewee(s) in a way that makes the reader feel a connection or a feeling as though they know the person.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Sinatra article, i realized that interviewers and writers also need to capture the setting and the mood of the interview, it definitely makes it a whole lot more interesting than just basic question/answer situation. Describing the setting can help the reader see how the interviewee is feeling and relate to them as much as possible. Although i do agree with what the others said that it was strange of Sinatra to not saying anything, but him not saying anything says basically so much more, actions speak louder than words.
ReplyDeleteMany people think that interviews only involve asking questions, but after reading the article, I have come to realize that there are other ways to "interview" someone. The interviewer needs to pay attention to their surroundings as well as what is being said or done by the person being interviewed.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting how Sinatra said nothing to the interviewer and yet with Sinatra's actions, he was able to write so much about it. The reporter talked about Sinatra the whole time and could do so because of the way he observed the situation. To me that's very impressive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach but Sinatra had just stood there and did nothing besides drink alchohol and smoke
ReplyDeleteAndrew Veiga
ReplyDelete"Actions speak louder than words" is what this article is all about. I also find it creepy that this author was creeping on Sinatra for this long of a time period.
when ms.DiMezza read the first pagragh it seemed to me he was a very storborn old man. but as i kept on reading this old man is going though alot seriose yet diffcult siuations, like people depending on him for their own wefare and stabilty thats a huge respondbilty to take. and Sinatra was ill. then i found the deffention to TRIVAL which means he had a dont bother me personality if it has to do with whats going on in my life then putting it on CBS
ReplyDeleteIn an interview, the questions are only half the battle. In this particular interview, the interviewer didn't say one word to Sinatra. Instead, he was smart enough to just observe & see what happens. As apposed to interviewing him with questions, he simply watched his actions. That was clearly enough to write a three page interview about him.
ReplyDeleteThere wasnt much interviewing going on directly, but there was interviewing in between the lines. The interviewer basically fought it out of Sinatra.
ReplyDelete@ Shounuk maybe he was drinking 2 much
ReplyDeleteRyan Connor
ReplyDeleteI thought that this interview was one of the best i have ever read. Instead of a boring question and answer type interview, the writer told a short story about Sinatra. It was really well written and I thought that it was really cool how he could "read" Sinatra and got a lot of good observations that could be interpreted.
The person who wrote this 26 page interview on Sinatra must have had the utmost talent and skill to observe him and write this without hearing him say a word. I can see how he could have done this though. He watched Sinatra's every move in the bar and read his body language to get this information. He set a good mood and attracted the attention of the reader by setting a mysterious tone. It was well written.
ReplyDeleteThe Sinatra article gave me a whole new perspective on interviews. It shows me that you need to set a scene and observe all of the things that are happening even if nothing is said. Like in this interview he doesnt actually get to interveiw him, but we are still intrigued because of the way that he portrays and descibes Sinatra. and by doing this, more people will be interested and want to read it.
ReplyDeleteInterviews don't all have to be the same, some you can ask questions and some you can just go by someones actions like in the sinatra "interview".
ReplyDeletei disagree desiree sinatra didnt speak so he was stubborn and fighting him did nothing obliviously
ReplyDeleteThere really wasnt an interview, he was just an observer. He watche dlong enough to actually hear him talk. I thought that there needed to be straight Q and A
ReplyDelete*26 pages.
ReplyDeleteYa after reading the article i found out that observing has to do with interviewing. If you cant get enough imformation on what the person said you can write what you think what there thoughts are. Sometimes writing what you think the person is felling and acting is better than what person is saying themself.
ReplyDeleteJessica Salvadore
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting that Sinatra did not say one word to the interviewer but he still writes a 26 page interview! Alot of the interview was about Sinatra's actions. Very impressive!
Ryan Connor
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew when he said "Actions speak louder than words" and if you can write a twenty-six page interview about a man who didn't even talk, then you must know about that saying.
I just think that if your going to interveiw someone 1. ask if they wanna be interviewed. and for the person who is talking about there life make sure theres noones around because people LOVE to change the story around to make you look like the bad person, which happends everywere not only in this article i just think people deseve there space and not have to worry about whats going to happen today or tomarow " thats would be stressfull and overwhelming for me"
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting interview because the interviewer didn’t actually say anything to Sinatra, from what we could tell. This interviewer was smart and he just observed him closely watching his every mood. This was a different style of interviewing that didn’t actually include talking but still happened to be very effective because after reading the interview I know a lot of information about Sinatra.
ReplyDelete