Since posting an interview with La Russophobe on Thursday, I’ve come in for some criticism, both in web comments, and via email. One reader was “absolutely baffled as to why you would actually have anything to do with La Russophobe” and another told me that he had “no idea why you are wasting your time on La Russophobe.”
So, I thought I’d post a quick explanation of why I chose to run the interview, and give you some more details of the series of interviews that is to follow.
Thursday’s interview with La Russophobe was the first in a series of weekly interviews of Russia bloggers.
I plan to ask the same basic set of questions to each blogger, plus add in a few extra questions that are directly aimed at individual bloggers, their experiences, and their expertise. The goal is to inform, entertain and to hopefully allow people to compare and contrast the beliefs and styles of different bloggers.
When sending out questions to bloggers, I have been careful to note that I will publish whatever answers they provide, regardless of what they say, and without editing. Essentially, I provide each blogger with a platform – it’s up to them to use their own words to either convince you of their wisdom, or lack thereof…
When I read the answers to the questions I’ve set, I know I make a judgement – about the value of the argument presented, and sometimes about the individual blogger. It might be positive, it might be negative, but it is inevitable that I will make that internal judgement. And I expect that others who read those interviews will make judgements of their own.
That’s why I’ve provided an un-moderated comments forum.
If you think what you are reading makes sense, then congratulate yourself on having found a like-minded soul and, if you want, you could post a comment expanding on some point in the interview.
If, on the other hand, you find someone whose words you read are utter rubbish, then you have the opportunity to tell them, and the world, exactly why you think they are wrong.