In a book you can really talk about ideas and themes and characters in a deeper way than you can even on the screen.
I'm not a go-in-for-the-kill kind of interviewer. It's a great thing to me, that kind of interviewer, but I'm not it. It doesn't play to my strengths at all. I like to interview people who are interested in telling their story and tell it as truthfully as they can.
I would love to see a revival of what we had against the war in the '60s - we could do these teach-ins on the internet, live and split screen, and have real in-depth debate between people that are on the "other" side of issues - nuclear, gun control, whatever. We could really be having a much more democratically involved and exciting debate with people emailing their questions and having a virtual town meeting.
Having a conversation on a landline is more intimate than talking to someone in person. Your voices are so clear and close - you're in each other's heads.
There are things that don't deserve to be said briefly.
He generally speaks about facts, issues, and if he's got a fault in speaking, it's probably that he knows so much about what he's talking about, sometimes he talks over people's heads.
Referring to U.S. Senator, Lloyd Bentsen:
We don't often have the luxury of time [in Steve Jobs movie ]to have these conversations where you just literally get to sit around for day and days and analyze every line of dialogue.
I think the problem with polemics is that it's general and it's lazy. When you say, "This is bad," that's a general thing. We're more interested in asking the question.
If the original Facebook was the first five minutes [of a conversation] and the stream was the next 15, what I want to show you today is the rest-the next few hours of a deep engaging conversation.
I want to do an intelligent talk show where you have room to breathe.
The purely agitational attitude is not good enough for a detailed consideration of a subject.
