semi-related: do you ever get tired of interviews that amount to "So what do you look for in a company?" "Well we look at the founders, more than the idea."? I'm always impressed at how genial you are in answering the world's most predictable questions in these interviews with big business outlets.
No, I don't mind. Actually I suspect most people never get bored of explaining something they're interested in. E.g. imagine asking a model train enthusiast or butterfly collector about their hobby. You'd probably get bored before they would.
Surely, but if a journalist does even the slightest bit of homework on his past interviews they could very easily upgrade to something like "I know you've said you focus on the team rather than the idea when selecting applicants..." and go on to ask something more substantive or insightful - or not.
They could even follow up with something like "how do you know" or "were there some specific failures that lead to this policy" and then they could at least have a conversation. As it stands, I could do a comparable interview using b-roll.
> if a journalist does even the slightest bit of homework
Well there's your problem.
Journalists need to get their 200 words and get out and on to the next job. There isn't enough time to study the subject of an interview. And often the assignment is at very short notice. "Jim, today you're interviewing Paul Graham. Jill, you're talking to Larry Ellison."
That could be a good way but I guess it may the case of a journalist thinking about his audience; she wanted to put the "we look at the founder" mantra down in the interview piece because there may be still many people who have not heard that super punchline!
