Something to Lose

                                     Thought the two interviews had many differences there were a few similarities.  The first interview kept hopping all over the place.  That interview had a montage of reporters who were covering the Iraq War and their opinion on what technology brings to the way wars are covered.  Terrance Smith, the reporter, would splice in these interviews with his own thoughts.  The second interview was between two people, but the interviewer dictated which way he took the conversation similar to the interviewer in the first section.  In both interviews the argument was built up over time regardless of who spoke.  The speakers answered questions completely different however.  The first interview is spliced and the answers are very short given by the multiple different reporters.  In the second interview, the answers are all long and the man being interviewed keeps repeating all his lines.  I thought the guy’s opinion on mcdonaldization was interesting, but he was not a very good interviewee.  He elaborated too much making his interview less interesting.  Both interviews probably had about the same amount of interjections.  The difference is that the first interview the answers are short and precise keeping that reader more entertained.  I enjoyed the first interview much more than the second.