# Punk Nomad



## Shwillam (Apr 2, 2017)

So I came across this article from vice: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/punk-nomads in which @Matt Derrick is mentioned as is STP.
It seems to me that Vice has attempted to paint the most horrible light filtered bullshit connotation they possibly could on the travel community.
My question/ topic of discussion is have any of you other traveling folk experienced an interview that the peeps involved have twisted your words into something they weren't? 
My other question which starts kind of with Matt is how do you answer interview questions in a way that cannot be turned against you, and what questions/ techniques can be used against people by pros to trick them into giving the answers they want?

I recently had an experience at Slab City where I felt like my ignorance was used against me and the media folk used that to get the answers out of me they wanted, and the more dirty kid documentaries or articles I've seen it seems they direct the answers the way they want to portray us any way they please. 

How can we combat this other than just "don't do interviews?"


----------



## Shwillam (Apr 2, 2017)

Oh and one more question

@Matt Derrick was the site almost called "punk nomad"? 
If so what stopped it and made you go back to STP? (Glad you did haha I think it has a better ring to it).


----------



## Hillbilly Castro (Apr 2, 2017)

haha I believe Matt described Punk Nomad as the "mid-life crisis" of StP. For a while, not super long, that's what STP was called.


----------



## Sputnik (Apr 3, 2017)

If it is a matter of twisted words I would agree before to demand the quotes used in the final text before printing.


----------



## landpirate (Apr 3, 2017)

I was interviewed by vice magazine a couple of years ago in an article I think Matt also took part in. Although I wasn't misquoted or misrepresented they did print my full name even though I asked them not to. That lead to me having some nasty/weird stuff sent to me via Facebook. Which I was pretty pissed off about.

I asked for the questions to be emailed to me and then I emailed back my answers. I declined a Skype interview mainly due to the time difference and also to avoid being caught out with difficult questions. They accurately quoted me, so I guess that's good.

I don't think all journalists are made equal, i think some definitely have their own agendas and will do whatever to make a name for themselves. Vice is particularly random when it comes to the quality of their stories.


----------



## Matt Derrick (Apr 3, 2017)

Hillbilly Castro said:


> haha I believe Matt described Punk Nomad as the "mid-life crisis" of StP. For a while, not super long, that's what STP was called.



Yeah I still jokingly refer to it as that 

There was a period of about 6 months (in 2012 I believe) where I changed the name to punk nomad in order to appeal to a broader audience. This was very misguided, based on some other advice I was reading about travel blogs that didn't really apply to StP so I (fortunately) realized my mistake and changed it back after a few months. 

It was during that time that vice did that interview. I agree it was not the best interview but it did lead to one of my youtube videos going viral which I made a butt ton of money on in adsense revenue so that kind of made up for it. Overall the exposure was good. 

As for the original question, one of the best ways to learn how to talk to the media is to pick up video editing as a skill. When you're editing interviews it becomes apparent really quickly that short, concise, and complete sentences are the easiest to work with, and make for the best "sound bites" that are perfect for TV. 

For example, if I ask you where you were born, instead of saying 'texas', I would repeat the question back to them, 'I was born in texas'. This eliminates the need for the video editor to include the question from the interviewer so it's more likely that will be used in the final product, and reduces the possibility of you being quoted out of context. So again when being asked about my life philosophy, I respond 'my personal philosophy revolves around personal freedom for all people' rather than 'I'm an anarchist'. You definitely have to consider how to respond on the fly, but if you take your time and respond in complete sentences, you should be fine. 

Now, Ive never actually been intentionally misdirected by an interviewer, but if I was, I would just do what all politicians do, and ignore the question entirely and give an answer to something else that helps my cause and not theirs. 

So, for example, "what is your response to the allegations of your pig fucking at the stag party last week?" would be responded with, "I think it's important to focus on the needs of my constituents in order to provide the best local policy making possible." or some such horseshit; just do what you can to turn the conversation in the direction you want.


----------



## Matt Derrick (Apr 3, 2017)

landpirate said:


> I don't think all journalists are made equal, i think some definitely have their own agendas and will do whatever to make a name for themselves. Vice is particularly random when it comes to the quality of their stories.



The reason for this is because vice outsources ALL of their content and has very few dedicated reporters. So they depend almost entirely on freelance content.


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Apr 3, 2017)

Sputnik said:


> If it is a matter of twisted words I would agree before to demand the quotes used in the final text before printing.



that just isnt how it works most of the time. if the people/person wants to make you look like a 40 oz schwilling doofus, they can.

but as far as interviews like this go, its deffinetly not the worst, ive read WAY worse where they make the person/culture look like a fucking garbage can with a few patches sewed onto it.


----------



## black (Apr 3, 2017)

I haven't even been on this site very long and that article makes me so angry.


----------



## briancray (Apr 3, 2017)

Walking with a backpack in America is different than other countries. People look down on you, that's just the way it is. We all get lumped together, whether we're out there for adventure, scenery, out of work, or because we have no other choice. What the article fails to realize is if you have no place to live, and you work seasonally, you could be wandering the streets, hitchhiking and hopping...The culture of trains and tramping goes beyond an interview. You cannot lump each individual into a group. We're all different. Some of us are writers, some artists, both musically or with a paintbrush, and some just plain scumfuck junkies. I did not like the article, but then again I don't normally like most articles I read about misfit travel. Don't ridicule someone's lifestyle when you've never lived a day in their shoes.


----------



## todd (Apr 3, 2017)

known elsewhere online as Matt Pist... that made me smile


----------



## Deleted member 20 (Apr 3, 2017)

Unsure if it is the same piece. I had some things I said twisted a bit. I did not like that my name was altered for anonymity wet ben though I gave them permission to use my real name.


----------



## Beegod Santana (Apr 3, 2017)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. For a hobo, the best press is no press. I see it as a double edged sword. Even if a reporter does a piece on travelers and keeps it positive, it's still gonna enrage a certain amount of the population who just see a buncha bums being put up on a pedestal they don't get to enjoy. If the piece is negative, then you get various civic groups arguing about "whats to be done with the transients." If there's no article at all, no one has to deal with the aftermath and we can all just continue on with our lives.


----------



## FrumpyWatkins (Apr 3, 2017)

Vice is badly made counter culture porn.

There have been several Vice focuses on train-kids etc. type articles and to be brutally honest, they aren't often wrong. I'd say they often over glamorize traveling, but in their often reoccurring hypothesis that a very many bums, are in fact, bums, they're pretty spot on. A very many people who are travelling professionally via rail are not seeking some Kerouac-esque idea of freedom. A very many are social outcasts with substance abuse and mental health issues, criminals, dejected/rejected folks, etc. It is actually a very selfish existence, all the while very self sufficient. Very few are traveling looking for work. Some may work if it becomes available, but because how society and job hiring is structured and getting worse, that is ever becoming increasingly less likely. The idea of the 19th or even the 20th century 'bo is dead, completely dead. A lot of folks are literally just wandering around. Not that it matters and I'm not judging I do the same thing, I'm just explaining why people often paint people who ride trains as layabout drunks. (One bad apple can ruin the whole bunch)

Back in the day MTV had made a few specials on runaways, dirty kids, train hoppers, etc. Before that there were some magazines that did some articles on the scene as it was transitioning from actual hobos and cross bred into the punk music/street kid scene to create something similar to what exists today (patchy clothes, drinking, face tattoos). I don't know why this became the face of train hopping, maybe it's articles like the one posted, but many people I've met including myself, don't fit this archetype. That scene has now cross bred with the rainbow/festival/and occupy culture which has hyped up the glamour and hyped up the mystique of using freight trains as a means of travel (Which a lot of people hate). The people who live it mostly hate the coverage, saying it is inaccurate, and the arm chair fans love the coverage because it allows them to fantasize about something they'll never do.

At the end of the day Vice is a worthless rag of a publication that preys on emotionally weak dreamers by exploiting alternative lifestyles for content.

I don't care what anyone thinks about me, I'm me, especially as I get older, and that is truly a freeing feeling.


----------



## Sputnik (Apr 5, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> that just isnt how it works most of the time. if the people/person wants to make you look like a 40 oz schwilling doofus, they can.
> 
> but as far as interviews like this go, its deffinetly not the worst, ive read WAY worse where they make the person/culture look like a fucking garbage can with a few patches sewed onto it.



Totally agree with this. I guess you really have to check the person out. If you get the feeling they only are there for a quick and juicy headline forget it. Same goes for when you notice that all the questions have the same directions, just differently worded.


----------



## roguetrader (Apr 5, 2017)

whenever we get the media down to our sites ( land squats ) they always home in on the dumbest most unhinged muthafuckers we got available - NEVER the more articulate people with something good to say....


----------



## Sputnik (Apr 6, 2017)

roguetrader said:


> whenever we get the media down to our sites ( land squats ) they always home in on the dumbest most unhinged muthafuckers we got available - NEVER the more articulate people with something good to say....


Thats something I don't get and it really shines a bad light on journalists as a profession. These are just people then who come with a prefabricated opinion and they will do anything to confirm these opinions and black out everything else that could lend some depth, nuance, etc etc.


----------

