I'm being interviewed today by a staff writer from The New Yorker. On preparation for the destabilization I see coming, first in politics but also in (probable) ecological collapse.
I read several of the man's columns to prepare; he is bright and seems sane. I have no particular faith that the article produced will be what I would want; as is usually the case, the writer seems to be a liberal, but his publication's owners are oligarchs, likely worth somewhere in excess of 20 billion dollars.
I don't regularly read the New Yorker, I do know that it has a good reputation, but so does the New York Times and Trump has really had no better friends in the mainstream press. Bright honest writers can have an impact -- that's what conservatives mean when they snarl about bias, the reality that most reporters are liberal. (Because educated.)
But he works for the people who are causing the problems I see coming, and I will be cautious in talking to him, and control my expectations.
From what I know of the New Yorker, I would refuse the interview and not have a doubt about it. Even if that particular writer has a liberal bent and that is reflected in what he writes of you, it will be wrung out of his words by an editor before it reaches publication.
You'll find that the result is factual, but some facts won't appear, and the facts that do will be framed from the boss's boss's boss point-of-view.
@fatsam Yeah. Corporate media gonna corporate media.
Good luck! I’ll look out for it.