sethlevine.typepad.com
"Usually people who say we're a bad deal, like Seth Levine in this article, simply don't understand what we do. If all we did was write checks, YC would be a bad deal. But in fact the money is the least of what we do. No VC who has seen Demo Day first hand has ever said YC took too much equity."
I'm not sure if this happens because it's an axiom of journalism that every story has two sides, or because conflict makes stories interesting. Maybe both. But one sees it often on TV news. A city bans people from setting one another on fire, and the reporter diligently tracks down the president of the local chapter of Pyromaniacs of America to offer the other side of the story.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since to me it does seem reasonable that his comments were taken out of context.
... but more accurate. It's hard to mis-quote someone in writing (a good reason to use email). Maybe the boring bit your talking about is the lack of physical contact between the interviewer & interviewee giving the writer less chance to interpret and make insights that can lead to writing a more entertaining piece.
From the interviewee standpoint, fact is far more important than spin or fiction. From a reader point of view, facts mixed with entertainment (& possible spin) maybe what they expect. But I ask myself, "what do I want to get when I read about something, I really want to know "hard information" about?" - the facts? impressions or entertainment?
I'll settle for the dry facts & any entertainment in the way of humour or language is nice, but secondary.
How so? Because the feedback time (i.e. follow-up questions) is too long? In that case, IM/chat should solve the problem.
Yes, IM is much better.
I'm not saying email is superior, but one should recognize the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Live interviews (and to a lesser extent, IM) are a place where the glib win. http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/0...