A Quote by Sam Peckinpah

Why should I give you an interview? All you journalists are plagiarists. — © Sam Peckinpah
Why should I give you an interview? All you journalists are plagiarists.
I think an interview, properly considered, should be an investigation. You shouldn't know what the interview will yield. Otherwise, why do it at all?
If you're coming to do an interview with me, you should know about me. It's not that it's 'cos I'm Wizkid; I'd even hate it if you were coming to interview my friend and asked him the same question. You're here for an interview, so you should know who you're doing the interview with.
I'd rather [the collection] have no title. Journalists like titles. That's why I give them to you.
An interview is only as good as both parties are willing to give to the interview and that includes the interviewer.
I figure no matter what interview I do, the real good 'journalists' are going to find the completely irrelevant quotes that will drum up some controversy and stick it on their page to get some clicks and completely miss the real context of what the interview is about. That's what we do nowadays and call it 'journalism.'
My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.
Why should all virtue work in one and the same way? Why should all give dollars? It is very inconvenient to us country folk, and we do not think any good will come of it. We have not dollars; merchants have; let them give them. Farmers will give corn; poets will sing; women will sew; laborers will lend a hand; the children will bring flowers.
I think it's a problem when journalists have the title of their article before they do the interview, because it biases the way they conduct it.
Journalists in newspapers and in many magazines are not permitted to be subjective and tell their readers what they think. Journalists have got to follow a very strict formulaic line, and here we come, these non-fiction writers, these former journalists who are using all the techniques that journalists are pretty much not allowed to use.
Why should The Beatles give more? Didn't they give everything on God's earth for ten years? Didn't they give themselves?
Given our abundance, the burden of proof should always be on keeping, not giving. Why would you not give? We err by beginning with the assumption that we should keep or spend the money God entrusts to us. Giving should be the default choice. Unless there is a compelling reason to spend it or keep it, we should give it.
I always felt journalists had a very clear idea of what they wanted to write about me before the interview began.
God can show you just what you need to give, even if you don't know exactly why you're giving it. That's why we should always seek God and prepare to give Him our very best.
When journalists come to interview me, it's a part of my life that is exhibited, as if pieces of clothing are being taken off one by one. But it's not very important really.
I think that all journalists, specifically print journalists, have a responsibility to educate the public. When you handle a culture's intellectual property, like journalists do, you have a responsibility not to tear it down, but to raise it up. The depiction of rap and of hip-hop culture in the media is one that needs more of a responsible approach from journalists. We need more 30-year-old journalists. We need more journalists who have children, who have families and wives or husbands, those kinds of journalists. And then you'll get a different depiction of hip-hop and rap music.
David Axelrod says we need to inspire more young people to be journalists? How about inspiring journalists to be journalists?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!