Making an interview on a blog poses some advantages and some disadvantages. The technical quality of the interveiw is often much worse than what you normally see in interviews in the television. That is the drawback, the good thing is however a much wider timeframe. In television you are very limited in your timeframe, you are only allowed specific amounts of minutes and seconds. Somehow modern tv has decided that time has to be speeded up, as though running faster will keep the audience.

Wrong, what keeps the attention of people is quality, and their interests.

But, these considerations however lead to a new way of looking at the interview in connection with the blogs. Time is unlimited, and people who read the blogs are mostly people who like to discuss, are interested in knowledge, and the competetition in this specific genre is almost nonexistent. Very few people make interviews on the internet.

All in all a dreamscenario for an interviewer.

The result is a much longer and deeper discussion, compared to interviews in television. The technical quality is worse, but the intellectual discussion is much better.

This combined with my Soctratic attitude to interviews, that truth is to be found in dialogue, creates somehow a new genre of interviews. The first interview with Mr. Lars Hedegaard created a lot of commotion, perhaps because the form in itself was so strange to the audience, that they simply underestimated the quality of the work, and thought it was the work of low quality.

It is up to you to decide, because the idea of quality is, to a large extent, a subjective feeling. There are off cause an extensive estetichal discussion that might follow the discussion of the form, but let it be. It is just interviews.