The interview of Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice, is in the extended entry below, to allow for my regular posts to have some visibility on my main page. The title of this post will also be updated with the most recent question number, so check back.

I will add each question and answer pair in the interview as they are finished to this post, which will be kept at the top of the site until the interview is completed. Please send suggestions for questions to me at jack -at- randomfate -dot- net, although I reserve the right to modify or not use any suggested questions, depending on how the interview develops.

—

Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice, has kindly agreed to participate in my experiment of a “20 Question Interactive Interview” despite his heavy schedule in his entertainment business in the real world and his writing not only for his own weblog but also for Dean’s World in blogworld. You can read what inspired the choice of Joe for this interview and a bit of his history in his responses to questions about blogging that he posted recently.

1. Joe, in your discussion about why you started blogging, you told of how you changed careers from being a reporter to being a ventriloquist. Other than the obvious wisecrack that you decided you’d rather be the ventriloquist for a while instead of the dummy mouthing the words of others, what prompted that career change, and why that particular career in entertainment, that is, in ventriloquism?

My full bio (which needs to be updated) is on my ventriloquism site. The link to the still under construction revamped site is http://www.joegandelman.com/bio.html. But in a nutshell: I always wanted to be an actor or comedian and was in lots of musicals at high school. When the moment of truth came to decide a career relatives talked me out of it. I loved politics, so at Colgate University I was a Political Science major. I beame interested in journalism, so in my senior year I set up with the help of a professor an indpendent study project that took me to New Delhi to intern on the Hindustan Times.

After college I went to Northwestern University to get my Masters in journalism…and upon graduation went BACK to India “for a few months” — which turned into nearly 8 years overseas, writing as a freelance “stringer” for the Chicago Daily News (by line said “Daily News Foreign Service”), and other papers. I later changed my base to Madrid, coming in at the tail end of the Franco era. After Franco’s death I became “the full time contributor” as the Monitor called it for The Christian Science Monitor in Madrid with the title “Special Correspondent of”.

This is making a long story short but: when I left Spain in December 1978 I spent a year at my parents house looking for a staff newspaper job. I wound up working on the Wichita Eagle-Beacon in Kansas from January 1980-Jan 1982, when the San Diego Union hired and brought me out to San Diego, CA.

Why did I leave journalism? The real story is that I felt journalistic standards had begun to slip and sensationalism had begun to take over. I liked thoughtful analyses where you DID read “on the other hand” versus the “advocacy journalism” that was starting to take over. Most people date the tabloidization of the press really kicking in with the Gary Hart scandal. I felt it was a lot sooner. I increasingly saw editors in almost a frenzy to beat TV and other papers, sometimes making errors. I (politely) clashed with editors on several occasions about stories that I felt were positive that deserved better play — even follow ups to once front page negative stories. I began to feel as the news media I had dreamed of working in had changed so much that I wanted a divorce. I couldn’t see me working in it until retirement or beyond.

I had started ventriloquism as hobby to relieve stress. I love performing and making people of all ages laugh (and I am told my serious posts on my blog do just that…). I got such great response from kids and families in particular that I began to look into doing school programs with kids — most of them school programs with a theme. Meanwhile, a realtively new hire at my newspaper died of a heart attack at age 50. Then I got into a near fatal car accident, which required more than 20 stitches on my face. I felt: “Life is too short for all of this. I’m going to get my life back on a course I want it to be on.”

So I tossed out my staff job and quit, figuring I would do shows to entertrain audiences and teach kids — taking me back to my original love of performing. And I planned to do freelancing for money…which I still need to get organized to do. The blog was the first step to get me back in “shape.”

2. You are one of the few bloggers with a background in journalism, and you have used that experience in several posts at The Moderate Voice to comment on how the news media works from an inside viewpoint. What are your thoughts on the weblogs that are trying to be news-sources, as compared to those that are commentary that sources news from the “old media”, especially in light of the openly partisan nature of the majority of weblogs and what you have just said about your discomfort with advocacy journalism?

The concept of weblogs supplanting the news media is a can of worms. Most weblogs today (including mine) are essentially extended “op-ed” pages. Bloggers read other materials written elsewhere and comment on them. The assumption is that the source material is accurate.  Most bloggers do NOT go out and re-report a story, or try to see if a fact is correct. They assume the source material is correct. And remember the old cliché: “‘Assume’ makes an ass of u and me.”

The 2004 campaign’s stories that generated original blog reporting were the stories about the Swift Boats and the Dan Rather/CBS debacle. I had a policy that got people angry on my site: I did not care about the military records of EITHER candidate since I felt it was veering the campaign away from more serious issues. Obviously many people (including many voters) did not agree. But in the case of Swift Boats there was some original reporting, interviews with the Swift Boat people who made the allegations. Similarly, in the case of Dan Rather, you saw unity among some bloggers (mostly conservative ones) who raised specific questions about those memos. And this literally shook the foundations of a network…which in the end was forced to respond.

What does this suggest? It suggests a) there is indeed a role that blogs can (and did) play in shoving stories that the mainstream media didn’t find interesting enough or were skeptical of into the mainstream media, b) blogs can take on the role of a collective cross examiner to vet information in record time, pooling expertise, with the speed of a typepad keyboard.

But this still does NOT mean blogs are going to replace newspapers.

Why? We still don’t have an answer as to whether if there is something highly detrimental to the Bush administration, a leading GOPer, or the Republican Party, the often partisan blogs will respond or simply ignore or defend the negative information.

In other words, we know there is a voice from bloggers that during this campaign seemed more dominant on the right than on the left. But will there be a BLOG VOICE that is applied as a watchdog EQUALLY to BOTH SIDES? The jury is still out on this — except on that disgraceful Armstrong Williams case where the commentator took money from the administration to pitch its line. Williams was denounced by bloggers on all sides with only a few making excuses for him (there was NO EXCUSE).

So we’ve seen the inklings something transcending partisanship. On the other hand, many blogs go overboard by suggesting that reporters and editors in mainstream news organizations are somehow monolithic, trying to find a way to bias a story against Bush, or even well-organized.

As someone who worked overseas writing for a variety of newspapers and on the staff of two city newspapers owned by healthy newspaper chains, nothing could be further from the truth. Editors make judgments in a rush. Reporters juggle several stories a day under tight deadlines. Any editor or reporter who would simply ignore a story for partisanship would be nuts since how your story is placed in the newspaper or on a broadcast is how you advance to another level in your profession. No one I worked with would have CARED if a monster story impacted the right or left; if it was a good, solid story, they would have run with it. And if they simply ignored it because they agreed or liked a possible story subject, they’d be working night police shift for a while.

The News Beast must be fed. Some bloggers are as contemptuous of news professionals as some news professionals are contemptuous of bloggers. I read about one blogger who basically said journalists are not intelligent. REALLY? How MANY does he know? If you vetted that statement you’d probably find not too many; certainly anyone who has talked to any editorial board (even if you disagree with it) or editor (even if you don’t like the paper) will usually find someone who knows an awful lot and agonizes over the choices presented to the public.

But as I said in my previous answer, our press seems on a downward slide. I still prefer to read my old haunting ground The Christian Science Monitor — a stand-back-and analyze newspaper that stylistically a European newspaper, perhaps because its staff has journalists from many countries.

And that’s the issue: if blogs…which necessarily reflect the writer’s personality…can get info out quickly on issues, they’ll play a key role. If they degenerate into sites that merely attack and name call politicians (and other bloggers) they’ll be fringe info sources. 

You can see any number of bloggers now inching out into the field of original reporting — it’s highly admirable. And if you read as many blogs as I do (the blogroll on my site is NOT just for show), you see that the vast majority are written by people who care enough to take the time to share ideas. Most are into ISSUES, even if they are anchored in a partisan viewpoint. And as far as partisan viewpoints are concerned, as Seinfeld says: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

3. You mention living and working overseas in India and Spain. How do you think your views are different now than they would be if you had not lived overseas?

I learned a lot not just from being overseas, but because before I do anything I read a ton of materials and try to learn as much as I can about it. In the case of India, I started studying it as a student at Colgate. I read everything I could on India. I studied the culture. While over there as a student, I struggled to learn Hindi (and have only retained some swear words). I continued my own intensive personal study while going for my Master in Journalism. Then I went back to India.

I did the same intense private study when I was getting ready to write on Bangladesh, Cyprus, and Spain. So I went into something after reading a ton of material.

But that’s all CONCEPTUAL. It helped prepare me for the context in which I would be living. Once I got to a destination, it was a new lesson every day.

I think I’m TOTALLY different than I would have been if I had not lived overseas. I was always good at looking at things from someone else’s point of view, and when I lived in South Asia I could at least understand where Indians and Bangladeshis where coming from — their rationale for feeling the Nixon administration had “tilted” to Pakistan etc. I could understand their resentments, their paranoia — not agree with them but I understood their perceptions. Ditto in Spain.

I lived in Spain in the last month’s death throes of the Franco administration. I covered that and the transition to democracy and left Spain in December 1978. Spain taught me about an alphabet-soup of political parties and how democracy can’t be taken for granted. To help me learn Spanish I watched the dubbed version of Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” — a talkie — 13 times. (I did a piece on it for The Christian Science Monitor and a “sidebar” for Newsweek’s international edition in 1975 as a short-term stringer). During Chaplin’s famous speech on liberty, which Americans today often feel is corny; Spaniards — who could not see this film until Franco’s death because it had been banned by the dictator — stood up and cheered. Some openly cried.

So my answer is: all of these experiences helped me develop an ability to take myself out of my own political positions (and I do have them), take a long hard look at an issue or an event, then view it from different perspectives, and write about different aspects of it. This “on the other hand” is hated by some who want clear, no nuanced opinions…but that’s the way I see things.

Another thing: in writing as a freelance overseas for some 7 years, I had to write for publications that had differing styles. This served me well when I returned to the U.S. I’d say the most pivotal event for me professionally was writing for The Christian Science Monitor, which had high standards of fairness. I also visited the Monitor editors in Boston for talks and for years they were my mentors. Even if you did an opinion piece for the CSM, it could never be name-calling rant. It HAD to be issues. I would be a totally different person professionally and personally if I had not had the privilege of living overseas — and writing for the Monitor. I was lucky.

4. In your responses to the questions about blogging, you mention that you exceeded your goals for your first year.  By most measures, The Moderate Voice would be regarded as a phenomenal success for a new blog, with a very high ranking in the blog ecosystem and winning an award from Wizbang.  What do you think are the origins of the success of The Moderate Voice?

Actually, I think of the blog a modest success. It’s a modest blog that started off with modest aspirations. I had 10 hits on the official starting date of January 1, 2004 and decided unless it was at a certain realistic goal by the end of 2004 I’d just walk away from it. It is NOT yet a big blog and may never be for a reason: I am not part of any party so I don’t have that built in “team” that will read me, no matter what. In fact, I periodically lose big chunks of readers (left and right) when they don’t like my stand on a hot issue. I think, though, that it’s done better than I thought due to several reasons:

For one thing, after trying it several ways, I did it my way and — for better or worse — not the way anyone expected me to do it.

Also, I truly like differing ideas (within reason; I would not link to an Al Qaeda site on my blogroll). And people on the left, center and right know that I get fired up when I read a good, solid post with a good argument that makes me think and re-evaluate. Also, I don’t care how many hits a blog gets or if the blogger is very young or very old. Everyone gets the same respect – which they ALL deserve for making the commitment to put their necks on the line by putting their views out for the world to see on the Internet.

And, importantly, I am finding that there is a core readership from all parts of the ideological spectrum that visit my site and like it because it’s not into name-calling (unless I can’t resist a sarcastic post on a subject).

In fact, the only blogs I won’t read is when I am personally attacked. . The reason: there are more than a million blogs out there and why waste your time with the ones that are in mired personal attack mode?

I myself did a double take when I saw my ranking on the ecosystem, but it’s perhaps also due to the fact that I started my blog specifically to write about a wide variety of things, not just to do reference posts and linkfests. And I think that because I’m not part of the Democratic or Republican cheering sections — which does NOT mean that I don’t take strong stands on issues, by the way – I have been linked more that I ever thought I would.

But overall, I think it’s because I do respect people who take the time to write blogs — while at the same time I want no part of blogs that think a personal attack is better than an argument on an idea. I might indulge in “snark” but I never attack other blogs or bloggers and most of my posts are centered on an idea or idea. Some are silly (to have fun) but some extremely serious and reflect attempts to do serious analysis. I also am now very interested in appearance — trying to find punchy graphics. People say they feel very comfortable on the site the way it’s set up; several emailers say they consider it “home.” But it still has a ways to go in terms of hits; its influence may be greater than its hits.

5. You have a broad definition of “modest success”… However, you do have a real life outside of blogging, part of which is your career as an entertainer. One reader had some questions about your work as a ventriloquist: What kind of dummies do you use? What personalities do they have? Will one of the dummies start his own blog?

I definitely do have a life outside blogging. I love the work I do as a ventriloquist where I have two goals: a) entertain in all shows, b) also TEACH kids and young people in my school and library shows. I do everything from camps, school assemblies, corporate shows, fairs (I will be doing fairs in Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska this summer with some more still possible), festivals, shopping mall “Kids Club” shows and was on NBC’s SPY TV (the famous episode where the ventriloquist leaves the room and the dummy comes “alive” and asks a four year old boy to help him run away from the mean old ventriloquist). I will (and do) travel anywhere for a show. Even though California is my base I’ve done shows in Vermont, Georgia, Texas, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and elsewhere.

You can see a (older) picture of me and some of my dummies by going to my existing website www.familyentertainer.com and the still under construction redesign at www.joegandelman.com (which will be switched over to the other address when it’s done). I use extremely costly wooden dummies designed by world-famous figure maker (which means dummy maker) Chuck Jackson.

The main character John Raven can stick out his tongue, wiggle his ears, and twist his head around — which suggests he’d be a perfect Presidential candidate.

I do a different kind of “vent” show. Most people stick to one or two characters. My fair show this past summer in places such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Corpus Christie, Texas included a huge cast — up to 9 segments at some of them. I use a wooden genie head in the box (a-la Senor Wences) and also various puppets which include a baby elephant (who squirts water out of his trunk and suddenly sops the kids in a highly popular segment), a seal puppet who balances a ball on his nose, a screaming/sweet baby puppet (he has two faces which means when he grows up he’ll run for Congress), a talking plant, a nervous turkey, three dogs (including a grumpy bulldog), a Martian, a drawing board that comes alive when I draw a picture, etc.

Each has its own personality. Someone recently told me my show reminds them of the old Jack Benny radio show (before my time) and television show (just barely in my time) in the sense that all of the characters give me a hard time and they get all of the good laughs. The main character John Raven always bugs me by making a joke, wisecrack or an insult. I do not do X material but can do double entendre material a-la “Married With Children” if requested (in one key routine). Each character has its own personality. For instance, the bulldog screams “Waddya laughing at?” like a bully and audiences love it. The turkey is nervous if you talk about food. The elephant is only 2 so after he squirts the kids and I demand an apology and he says he doesn’t know what it is I insist “Give it to me!”  — and he does (in the face).

Will one of my dummies start his own blog?

No. There are already a lot of blogs written by dummies.