Comments on: Tough Questions, Journalistic Truth, and Danica McKellar

By: Ana de Campos

Ana de Campos — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:57:58 +0000

It’s bad this didn’t work out well. However I would like to see more interviews with authors of popular science/math literature; simply because I think you could explore the subject better than anyone, considering you interview to find out more about the book and critically analise it, flaws included, rather than just promote it.

By: Edward Champion

Edward Champion — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:41:38 +0000

Lottaknow: Nope. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand journalism. I was not interested in performing cunnilingus on Ms. McKellar. Nor is any decent journalist. Again, I suggest you revisit journalism history of the past fifty years. You may want to check out Jimmy Breslin for starters. It is not my fault that Ms. McKellar lacks the ability to think. But it is my fault for actually believing this unpleasant person to be worthy of my program.

By: Lottaknow

Lottaknow — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:26:01 +0000

Not at all. But there are different types of interviews that suit different subjects. Danica McKellar’s book is aimed at tween/ teen girls, and is supposed to be about making math easy and fun for this group. That’s a positive goal, and though it’s important, doesn’t call for hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners questions.

In your interview, you treated McKellar as if her book had some kind of darker agenda: your way of asking questions was hostile. Whenever she answered your questions, you kept pushing, eventually steering you both into irrellevant waters (feminazis?). That doesn’t translate as “taking the book seriously.”

So I’ll ask you again: are you actually against McKellar’s book? Do you object to the fact that it’s aimed at only one group? Why the hostile, all-out attack?

By: Edward Champion

Edward Champion — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:36:33 +0000

Lottaknow: It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the concept of journalism.

By: Lottaknow

Lottaknow — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:32:00 +0000

“I was not trying to pass judgment. I was only trying to understand.”

No, you were not. I’ve listened to the whole podcast, and it’s obvious you were arguing for the sake of arguing, and really passing judgement. Your tone of voice is sarchastic, and as soon as McKellar says something, you reply with a ‘But why is that?’-type of question. Nothing she says is good enough as an answer to you, and no matter how many times or ways she tries to clarify her position, you go after that clarification.

There is something to be said for letting your subjects breathe. Honestly, going after someone like this is not asking “tough questions,” it’s just exhausting the person you’re interviewing. I completely understand why McKellar had to take a break.

So what that her book is aimed at “girly-girls;” is it your view that they don’t exist, or that it’s wrong for someone to focus a book on just this market? Why would this be any more wrong than the hundreds of technical books written for “boyish-boys”?

Overall, McKellar replied to your questions in a positive and composed manner, but you yourself came off like a self-important teenager with a microphone.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:51:15 +0000

I think Danicas book is great. There is nothing wrong with girls acting like girls and Mckellar is absolutely correct that most girls like make up and such things. Call it stereotyping if you want but I think anything that encourages normal girls to paticipate in education and that they don’t have to act stupid to be attractive and popular is great. Both of you behaved rudely to each other and took yourselves way too seriously, too bad.

By: Wonder.......Full

Wonder.......Full — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:21:05 +0000

Danica, I grew up with you Thank you for the journey. Shame you don’t act anymore you could have been a greatBIG movie star

By: mr_stupid

mr_stupid — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:38:26 +0000

1,000,000 words on a child television actor cutting you off after you imply her teen girl book is dumb. Did you want her to handle it like hannity & colmes? Get a life, Ed. It isn’t a real book, it’s a teen product.

By: jmfausti

jmfausti — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:29:13 +0000

I’m guessing you aren’t the first person to question McKellar about the inconsistency in her message. Maybe the feminist question hit her too hard. It’s fine to be smart and girly, but it’s offensive and condescending to assume that’s the way all girls are. She seems to think that she broke the mold, but when she stereotypes all teenaged girls, she shows that not only is she not unique, she’s just as bad as everyone who thinks girls only care about the way they look. Now that I think about it, the title of her book very specifically defines her audience. Any girl who doesn’t equate survival with the status of her manicure could easily pass up this book.

By: Steven Augustine

Steven Augustine — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:54:38 +0000

“Here is a regional reporter asking a tough question, more insensitive than any query I posed to Ms. McKellar…”

Though isn’t that a shaky analogue? You’d have to unearth some hardball 19th century interview questions tossed at, say, Sarah Bernhardt, or the very famous *Joseph Pujol*, to establish a reasonable comparison…

By: Steven Augustine

Steven Augustine — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:39:17 +0000

You used the word “taxonomy” on Winnie Cooper.

By: amcorrea

amcorrea — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:39:32 +0000

“I mean, you’re asking me to warn girls against listening to certain people?”

Just curious… What did you say after she said this?

By: erin

erin — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:21:26 +0000

(html characters ate my previous post, trying again)

::No one really cares what celebs have to say::

Kids do. I have a daughter who likes math, Legos, nail polish, and Polly Pocket. And in spite of growing up underneath my reign of cynicism, she admires female television characters. So even though I personally don’t care how deep Danica McKellar’s wading pool is, as her parent I have to be interested in that sort of thing for brief periods of time — particularly when there’s academic and/or role model throwdown.

By: erin

erin — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:17:09 +0000

>>No one really cares what celebs have to say.

By: marydell

marydell — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:01:09 +0000

“Perhaps this has always been the case to some extent, but it appears that one may only ask certain questions. An interview subject, in turn, is not responsible for talking about certain topics, even those in which she has a decided hand in.”

Unfortunately, this has always been the case. Celebrity itself is an industry, each star is a commodity, and image is what sells. But, come on. Surely, you walked in there knowing that there was nothing serious about the book, so why bother acting like you were there for serious journalism? No one really cares what celebs have to say.

(Now I have to Google “Danica McKeller” because I have no idea who she is.)

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:09:37 +0000

Maybe one day the good old pendulum will swing in the other direction.

By: cronopio

cronopio — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:17:12 +0000

I once heard about a journalist who was among the army of interviewers talking in 5-minute slots to Jack Nicholson about his latest movie. When this guy entered the hotel room, he responded to Nicholson’s question, ‘How did you like the movie?’ by saying that to be honest, he didn’t like it much.
A lively conversation ensued in which Nicholson tried to point out the merits of the film, and when the five minutes were up, the actor ignored his PR guy’s interruptions and kept talking.
I guess the moral of this story is: you win some, you lose some, but it’s always worth trying.