Abhishek Aravind IEM1201N Group 2

Compairson contrast paper 20 September 2012

In comparing Malcolm Gladwells interview on Charlie Rose and Walter Isaacsons interview on 60 minutes in the context of broadcast media, certain rubrics in evaluating authenticity can be ascertained. Recorded interviews present an interesting study case as they represent edited pieces of conversation and therefore the norms in defining authenticity need to be adjusted accordingly. In the context of broadcast media, Montgomery provides six general rules(Montgomery, 2001, p.402)i to validate the authenticity of broadcast talk which, In short, are (1) that the conversation is crafted in real time relative to the participants; (2) that the conversation involves multiple parties; (3) that the discourse is not premeditated; (4) that the outcome of the conversation is not predictable; (5) that there is changing of speakers; (6) there is no prior allocation of turn types. Malcolm Gladwells Interview falls in line with all six rules except perhaps in that the topic of discussion may be premeditated, which however, is the case for the majority of general discourse. Therefore it can still be assumed that the content of the interview is not likewise premeditated. It could also be argued that there is a prior allocation of turn types as the interview follows a question and answer format between Rose and Gladwell. Here again though, the counter argument can be made that the format of the interview simply aids in keeping to the topic of discussion and does not greatly influence the content and thereby the authenticity of the talk. This can be seen more clearly when Gladwell discusses the relation between mammography and bombing(Writers on Writing Charlie Rose, 6:03)ii. While it does not directly answer the question that Rose presents, it presents information that is related to their topic of discussion. We identify this as fresh talk as it represents input that is not coerced and is of Gladwells own construction. Isaacsons interview on 60 minutes follows a similar format in that it too agrees with the rules put forth by Montgomery. The video represents a much more edited article than does Gladwells but the individual sections of conversation between Isaacson and the interviewer are largely unedited and therefore still imply that the discourse between the two is crafted in real time. We can see early on in the interview that Isaacson presents an essence of fresh talk in discussing the surroundings in Jobs upbringing; in his interpretation of how his being born near the future Silicon Valley yet living a wild hippie lifestyle influenced who he would become and would play a part in his success (Walter Isaacson on 60 Minutes, 3:45)iii. However, the stark difference in authenticity of the two interviews comes to fore not when analysing the articles with regard to their adherence to Montgomerys rules but rather when considering if they adhere to his underlying definition of authentic talk, in that the speaker represents a union between animator, author and principal(p.399). Gladwell, in this definition, is animator and author of his discourse but above all, he is also the principle in that his discourse represents his own opinion and thought and does not hinge on that of others. Isaacson however, is forced, largely due to the nature of his

interview, to often mirror the opinion of another individual, Steve Jobs. This can be seen in his telling of how Jobs viewed the selling of the blue box as the actual beginning of Apple(4:38). Through his interview, Isaacson does provide his own interpretation of Jobs life; this can be seen in his recollection of Jobs experience at ATARI(5:44), describing him as abrasive. He also goes on to describe the conflict that he, Isaacson, perceives in Jobs dichotomy of personality, the conflict between hippie and salesman. Nevertheless he is forced to often draw on Jobs opinions, in the same vein as writing his biography, retelling many of the conversations he has had with Jobs. and therefore his discourse therefore represents a middle ground between fresh talk and recitation. In conclusion, it can be seen that Gladwells interview represents a more authentic piece of discourse when compared to Isaacsons and thereby goes on to furth er show that the authenticity of an article is not polar in that it is authentic or not but rather represents a degree of authenticity where one article can be more authentic in relation to another. Contrary to Montgomery, authenticity does not simply represent the union of animator, author and principle but rather represents a point on the spectrum of authenticity in between.
i

Montgomery, M. (2001). Defining `authentic talk'. Discourse Studies, 3, 397-405. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003004004 Retrieved from http://dis.sagepub.com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/content/3/4/397 ii Rose, C. Writers on Writing. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMACNQPrWDM iii Isaacson, W. 60 Minutes: Steve Jobs Special. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X64BijQA7Sw