Ratings have changed, viewer habits have changed and the options for the audience have grown enormously, but I don't think how you tell a story is fundamentally different.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you create a good story that has a lot of story value... I think audiences like that. It's why they stick with the same TV show over and over.
I think it's more interesting to throw people into a story and let them catch up instead of explaining and feeling like you have to slow down for them. I think audiences, for the most part, they don't want to be ahead of you.
Honestly, the essence of publishing hasn't changed. Since the days of the cave man carving stuff on the cave walls, people have wanted stories, and storytellers have wanted an audience. That is still the case. The changes are really a matter of format.
For me, I think there's a lot more room in cable television to tell broader stories. NBC and the networks, they're all very mainstream, and they're a little more conservative in how they approach storytelling.
Ratings don't last. Good journalism does.
I think that as is true in this industry, everything gets blown out of proportion because it's more fun for people to read about. It's even more fun to read about if the stories get wilder and wilder.
I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us.
Films don't always tell a story; some films can achieve effect just by being razzle-dazzle or rock n' roll. That's part of the fare that's out there. And that's okay. For me, I place more value on a story.
I tell stories about people audiences might think they have nothing in common with, then they emotionally connect with them and find they're not different at all.
The difference between critics and audiences is that one is a group of humans and one is not.
No opposing quotes found.