You know, there's something about our culture that just seems like it's been ironed flat. No one is allowed to have a public opinion about anything, because that might offend someone. You could work the graveyard shift at a gas station, and they'll make you sign a form saying you won't talk to the media.

Maybe that's why I still read The Stranger, three years after moving away from Seattle. At least you guys aren't afraid to have fucking opinions.

Wow, you're right, Anna Kendrick doesn't have lips. I still think she's hot, but you do have a point.

Thanks for the article about the world's most awful PR interview. It's a fun read.

Aw, this is so sad. Edgar Wright seems like the biggest little kid in the videos on his blog, and the film was so much fun. It's really disappointing to know that all of the bounce got steamrolled out of the cast and director right as the movie was coming out. I guess that happens on most major films, but I had naively hoped that nerds would be more resilient.

@2/@4:

Was the KING-or-KOMO lady jovially bantering about the film as a lightning rod for hipster-culture backlash?

I don't think Paul's questions -- about as controversial as one might be allowed to get in this scenario -- are to blame here.

I had to laugh at your comment about Soundgarden. Love those guys, but they have the WORST PR and street team ever. Every announcement or site update I read is so breathless and over-the-top.

You should record your commentary/indictment over the video and post that.

What did you ask them?

Ideally the interviewee would play along with non-standard questions, as in Gordon Keith's "awkward television interviews":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPJowXgH3…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbfgcwOvy…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqb36PFEc…

@8: That's what Luke Burbank did with his infamous Sigur Ros interview: http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007…

I'm looking at that picture and I'm dying. God that must have sucked.

Dude, no lips??

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0447695/

I know people with no lips, and the pictures at this link show that she has lips.

I like shows like Larry King or Charlie Rose because they try really hard to make things interesting even when their subjects are boring, inane, self absorbed celebrities that talk about nothing remotely interesting. Maybe instead of blaming PR departments you should be apologizing for not trying harder and not growing as an intervier. It's your fucking job for god sakes.

"To my horror, I realized Kendrick has no lips."

Back before Russell Brand was a pompous ass, he had a weekly radio show and he delighted people by asking celebrities completely irrelevant and frequently silly questions.

He interviewed Morrissey (who hates to give interviews) for 40 minutes almost entirely about Moz's relationship to cats and his feelings on travel. Instead of pre-written answers, the actors are forced to think on their feet. The problem is asking off-the-wall questions that still hold meaning.

Best example of an interviewer asking questions that the PR rep did not pre-approve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJWS6qyy7…

Interviewing is hard work. Not everyone can be good at it, especially if they aren't committed to being good at it.

Don't beat yourself up too much though. Writing book reviews sounds a lot like punishment to me and I think you do a pretty good job in that arena.

For the record, I was there at the interview holding the camera, and was surprised/impressed by how smart and insightful Paul's questions were. I promise you that wasn't the problem.

Being someone who gets interviewed about twice a month, I can relate. I can't get over the fact that no one knows how to use google. Do a little research for pete's sake! Why do they always ask the same d*mn questions? I appreciate that Paul's questions were smart and insightful... Michael Cera must have been burned out by the last half dozen mindless questions. Press conferences are a good way to take care of all those same superficial questions at one time.
My perverse nature has led me to subtly sneak into my answers internal inconsistencies and even bald faced lies. Only once have I ever been asked to clarify. Where have all the investigative reporters gone? Whenever I get even the least bit challenging, invariably the reporter will shift the topic to more simplistic subjects, or of course that part of the interview will be cut. What is it about the media that insists on appealing to only the stupidest of readers/viewers. The Stranger at least maintains a good degree of originality. (thanks!) I remember how twenty years ago, reporters would come (often early) with a cameraman and an assistant who would take care of the lighting etc. They took notes, and they asked probing questions based on a working knowledge of my background. I would get a fax with the write up and an invitation to change anything that seemed in error. Then they just came with a cameraman, and though they took notes, turned on a recording device, "just to be sure." They started to ask the same canned questions. Only occasionally would I be asked to fact-check. Soon, the reporters were expected to take the pictures too! They only use a recording device now. They aren't even sure who I am, or why they are doing the interview (just that their boss said to cover the story) They arrive late, and haven't prepared any questions, so they ask me to, "tell (them my) stuff," and look abstractedly around as I feed the mic with information he forgot to ask me. Now they run from interview to interview without enough time to even take off their coats. That all has to be processed into some form of an article that night. The deadline being the same day, there is no chance for fact checking. The article comes out full of preconceived ideas, none of which are true (all of which I preemptively refuted to his mic) This tells me that last night, he didn't even have time to listen to his recorder before writing the story.
What does this tell us?
One, that journalism as we understand it, is dying. Investigative journalism, dead.
Two, quality in the media has been sacrificed for profitability.
Three, you can't believe what appears in print; it is either spoon-fed by promoters, and unquestioningly lapped up by 'reporters', or based on some incurious person's preset conclusions.
Four, a serious, hardworking, inquisitive reporter probably won't be appreciated in this kind of environment.

Please give the video the MST3K treatment, and then post it on YouTube.

PR person here - I know, I'll duck the rotten tomatoes.

I empathize. I have a similar rant about mommy bloggers and one client or another at least once a month. Still, I'm not in the celebrity business (thank god) so it's rare for me to field that kind of attention.

I take some issue with a few of your points, but I agree the system is broken. These publicists sound terrible.

That said:

-There are PR people (like, ahem, me) who have never pitched The Stranger because we know we have nothing newsworthy for this audience. You just never get to meet us because we're so darn polite and busy pitching some paper much more suited for our clients.
-Anna Kendrick was probably contractually obligated to publicize the movie way before her part was even filmed/edited.
-Scheduling 30249534523409098 interviews in one day when you have a hotel room reserved for four hours (and 15 minutes of set-up) is not ideal for ANY publicity team.
-Particularly since, as you pointed out, reporters typically ask the same questions to death.
-The bass was undoubtedly there for the one random reporter from Topeka yelling "I need B-roll of something!!"

Related: The other thing is that if the celebrities go off script - I know this is a shocker - many of 'em are kind of doofuses:

http://www.andpop.com/2010/02/11/john-ma…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOhKrL5DB…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262…

Sadly, it's just safer to give them a script (and many people feel more comfortable with one - they're actors, after all).

tl;dr Our job is to help you get the best story you can. Sucks that didn't work with these guys - please don't paint all of us with the same brush.

I'll chime in with Washington Outside - except that I'm an ex PR person.

It's fucking sad. Your bosses and company don't want you to say anything but 4-8 key messages. They are boring as hell, and any question you get, no matter how heavy-hitting, you have to take and just return to those same key messages. I hated it.

Reporters started to like me because I'd go off message since I knew the topics I was reporting on. Most of my co-workers just new the messages.

A good interviewer should push hard. Anyone who did that could get some good details, but unfortunately, no one does that anymore.

I'd recommend checking out Kevin Pollak's Chat Show. He's continuing the Charlie Rose tradition a bit, but they bypass PR people and get interviewees by word of mouth and referrals, and since it's online there's no time restrictions (his recent Billy Bob Thornton show ran for a little over 2 hours).

I'm sorry, I can't get over the fact that the girl has her shoes on the couch. What a brat.

Not cool that you insulted Anna Kendrick's physical appearance.

You thought Mr. Cera would NOT be boring. Now THAT'S interesting!

And, Dee, you are welcome on my sofa.

i'm calling shenanigans on this. even lindy west assures us that the awkwardness of the interview had nothing to do with the questions asked by paul. you folks are trying to hard. but after viewing the photo posted in the write-up, kendrick appears to be seriously annoyed, and cera can barely contain his angst. top that with the fact you won't post the video, and i'm willing to bet you completely botched the interview via poor tactics. just a hunch. let me know when you release the footage.