For years, I've been interviewed, and they write what they thought I thought or what they thought I said. Sometimes it's accurate, and often it isn't.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I always felt journalists had a very clear idea of what they wanted to write about me before the interview began.
When somebody wants to interview me, I've always got something to say.
If people want to really know what's up with me then they can read one of my interviews.
I've realized why I don't tell the truth in interviews. It's because they're printed months later, and you change so quickly - you have new thoughts, new everything - so people are reading an old version of you.
It's an odd experience reading interviews with yourself. Interesting, though. Of course, you know that the journalist will have edited, rephrased or even rewritten what you actually said, but you can't help feeling that there's a special kind of truth in the way someone else paints you, however subjective they might be.
I've been doing interviews for years, and in all that time, I've virtually never read one and gone, 'Yep, factually and tonally that's exactly what happened.' Pretty much never.
I prefer doing interviews where people don't have to interpret what you say. I'm going to be real honest.
I'm a bad interview because I want to always feel like I'm being totally honest, but at the same time, I'm absolutely paranoid. That combination results in a lot of spaces.
I think the written word is probably the best medium of communication because you have time to reflect, you have time to choose your words, to get your sentences exactly right. Whereas when you're being interviewed, say, you have to talk on the fly, you have to improvise, you can change sentences around, and they're not exactly right.
I try to lie as much as I can when I'm interviewed. It's reverse psychology. I figure if you lie, they'll print the truth.
No opposing quotes found.