Profile Thoughts

Profiles are my absolute favorite. From a personal opinion standpoint, I can tell you exactly why. From a writing perspective, it’s a bit more difficult to articulate. The Lois Weisberg article bored me. Why? I don’t think the writing is representative of anything relation to the object of the piece. Malcom Gladwell writes the same way, with the same regular size sentences, average word choice and neatly constructed paragraphs with opening and closing and standard transitions most of the time- regardless of subject. So I cam away feeling as if I still don’t’ know Lois- to her than that she knows a lot of people, loves coffee and nicotine and comes off a bit kooky. Reading the article I did not come away feeling a though I’d spent five minutes with her; contrary to the Sinatra piece, where I felt like knowledgeable observer, a member of his secret spy committee who follows him everywhere and understands his movement. But I suppose, perhaps that Is not his point- what Lois actually says to people, I couldn’t even fathom, or how she acts interacts with all these people she’s vaguely or strongly connected to. It is of course just what I value in the world, but to me, it is not Lois the article does her a disservice because she herself as an individual seems devoid of any true meaningful relationship or any all consuming passion. Yes, I’m being overly critical here- but I much prefer reading Talese’s article on Sinatra that in every aspect and from different angles encompasses Sinatra as a person throughout the duration of the article. As we discussed in class- his writing that can be read as a metaphor of Sinatra’s persona, and how he interacts with others is presented patently with pivotal quotes or through how his relationships with those closest to him. I also like this because the writers voice is entirely involved, and I think that this is journalism at its best. I love the transparency, and that we are able to see it through some one else’s eyes, because obviously we were not fortunate enough to experience it alone. Knowing the medium you are working through is crucial, and being comfortable with it, instead of seeing it as some foreign source I find to be a positive attribute.

Possibly this is why I like 60 minutes so much, because through television you can see the interaction and the interviews each have their own personality and you can interpret the interviewed reactions accordingly. For instance: when Leslie Stahl typically takes a more neutral role, but she is who she is and appears a certain way, so I think she down plays this well. Recently in Jersuleum, she interviewed several men, who I think if she took on a more friendly persona, would not take her seriously- but she never cracks a smile and asks them questions they do not want to answer dead in the eye. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6966854n This is interesting in contrast to where the interview that Steve Kroft has with Beyonce. Yes these two are seemingly similar, but the approaches they take are much different. One is obviously a more serious subject matter, however, I find it interesting that Steve Kroft is so much more casual and often laughs with Beyonce, yet his own voice is less heard. In comparison to the Stahl interview, where I feel like her own viewpoint is made more transparent throughout it she makes references or even slight innuendos to her own opinion, and how she is a figure/aspect of the interview and report as a whole. I appreciate this, and find it much more effective- especially since, in the Kroft report he could have gotten away with being much more transparent as Beyonce is not a very controversial subject.

In the Wall Street Journal they ran a cover story on Jay-Z’s empire. Oh and what an empire he has! Truly though, I think that if an article written on a celebrity today were to mimic the Sinatra article, a subject could be Jay-Z. He has that sort of air about him, and can be perceived as a rebel and a savior all in one and does it with a certain amount of class- anyways, this article was a disappointment, and did the exact opposite of the Esquire article. Boring historical facts, without input from the writer to make them less mundane, there was even an interview, but the quotes could have been said by anyone and did not shed any light on his personality. Of course, it was in the wall street journal- but it did not even illuminate his large sum of money well or express how he does/does not flaunt it through the detailed descriptions of his attire and toys. I really am just in love with this Gay Talese article, I think it is done so beautifully; it is exactly what I appreciate and enjoy in journalism.