This satirical, mock interview with Chris Blackburn, the Founding Editor of Narrativa360, offers a sharp, witty, and intellectually provocative glimpse into the platform’s editorial philosophy. Through 20 well-crafted questions, it establishes Narrativa360 as a bold, independent voice committed to asking uncomfortable questions, rejecting echo chambers, and treating neutrality as a method rather than a muzzle. Blackburn’s responses blend skepticism, passion, and clarity—revealing a vision for journalism that values truth over convenience, embraces complexity without condescension, and refuses to sanitize difficult debates. Whether discussing sectarianism, faith, or editorial choices, the piece captures the spirit of a platform that seeks not to preach or pander, but to provoke thought and illuminate hidden truths.
Q1: What’s been your hardest call as an editor—cutting a sentence or cutting a story?
I’ve never edited a publication in my life. But being a Communications Director has taught me valuable lessons about shaping output and narratives. It’s almost like running a publication. So, I’m relishing the challenge. Cutting a sentence feels like pruning a bush—it keeps things tidy. Cutting a story? I’ve never been tested. So, watch this space.
Q2: How has your background in writing and editing shaped your views on power, belief, and how stories are told?
It’s made me suspicious of certainty and allergic to spin. Writing teaches you that power hides in the footnotes, not the headlines. Editing teaches you that belief is often just beautifully phrased bias. But passion must be at the heart of it. That’s going to be the foundation of the project.
Q3: Narrativa360 says it won’t take sides but asks tough questions. How do you keep things fair without being boring?
Asking a provocative question and exploring the answers is never boring. We’ll be covering big ideas. It’s an exciting prospect. The world is always changing. It’s a dangerous time.
Q4: What’s the main thing you’ll look for when deciding whether to publish a piece—timing, truth, or how many people it might annoy?
Truth. Then timing. And if it annoys the right people? That’s bonus points.
Q5: Of the five sections of Narrativa360, which one do you think will cause you the most headaches?
“Faith & Fracture.” Anything involving God, identity, and geopolitics tends to end with people sending you emails that start with curse words.
Q6: Communalism or sectarianism—are they really that different, or just two words for the same problem?
Different fonts, same script. One wears a national flag, the other a sacred text. Both are dressed for conflict. Human beings seem to be hard-wired to hate each other. I’ve always loved learning about other cultures, and cooperative projects between nations are my passion. Communalism has been a major focus of my working life. There are no easy answers to solving it. But if you look at countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, they’re turning heads. The Abraham Accords have been a breath of fresh air. Compromise and cooperation are winning over conflict. We should celebrate these kinds of developments. I want Narrativa360 to monitor their progress.
Q7: In today’s world, how do you tell the difference between healthy debate and just people yelling at each other online?
If you’re learning something new, it’s a debate. If you’re learning new insults, it’s yelling.
Q8: Do you think editors should stay neutral—or is taking a stand part of the job now?
Neutrality should be a method, not a muzzle. Sometimes, you take a stand by refusing to sit in anyone’s corner. I’m not opposed to people being passionate or harbouring certain degrees of bias. We aren’t robots. We’re human.
Q9: If the liberal world order is falling apart, is Narrativa360 here to fix it or just tell us how it broke?
We’re not carpenters. We’re mapmakers. We chart the collapse, ask who loosened the bolts, and wonder aloud if the scaffolding was ever real. Who should be sued?
Q10: Is there anything you’d never publish, no matter how well written it is?
Yes. Anything that glamorises cruelty, sterilises history, or masquerades hate as heritage.
Q11: You say Narrativa360 is for people tired of echo chambers. But what if they’ve just moved into new ones?
I’d be happy to publish something I don’t like—as long as it kick-starts healthy debate. Is that clickbait? Yes, but that’s the whole point. Media houses are businesses at the end of the day. If you don’t like to be provoked sometimes, stick to being a couch potato.
Q12: How do you plan to make serious topics interesting and easy to read—without watering them down?
By trusting the reader’s intelligence. You don’t need to simplify ideas—you need to seduce them with clarity. I want the headline and first paragraph to hit readers like they’ve been struck with a tuning fork. If that doesn’t happen, what was the point?
Q13: Who’s one writer or thinker you’d love to have on the platform in your first year?
I’d like to push Middle Eastern writers. There’s a lot of change happening in the Gulf. I’d love to platform their voices.
Q14: How do you avoid becoming just another “alternative voice” that starts sounding like its own tribe?
By refusing comfort. When your audience starts nodding too much, it’s time to ask a question that makes them shift in their seat. I don’t want to go out to deliberately offend, but we must ask questions that start a debate.
Q15: Football or cricket? And does your answer say something about your politics?
Football. It’s a game I’ve always played and watched. It’s the globe’s leading sport. I love watching how football and politics can shape nations—Italy being a prime example. I’m also following its rise in the USA after they resisted it for so many years.
Cricket. It understands patience, colonial hangovers, and the poetry of pauses—which gives the sport a certain mystique. It’s also bloody dangerous. I don’t think viewers understand the risks involved. T20 cricket gives me heart palpitations.
Q16: If you could ban one phrase from public conversation—“weaponised belief,” “late capitalism,” or “as a person of faith…”—which one would you bin?
“As a person of faith…” Not because it’s invalid—but because it too often becomes a shield, not a starting point.
Q17: What’s your favourite writing snack: instant coffee, trail mix, or low-level anxiety?
Low-level anxiety. Always available, costs nothing, and burns more calories.
Q18: Some people say you’re too secular. Others say you’re too serious. Are they both right?
Probably. But I take it as a compliment. If both the saints and the jesters are uncomfortable, I’m probably in the right pew.
Q19: If your editorial style had a personality, would it be more “grumpy philosopher,” “cheeky troublemaker,” or “calm in the storm”?
A cocktail of all three. The philosopher sets the tone, the troublemaker edits the intro, and the calm one hits publish.
Q20: Last one: Would you rather edit a thousand-word rant from a rebellious priest or a love letter to fossil fuels by a horoscope writer—and why?
The priest. Because beneath the rage is usually a deeper faith. And with the right edit, that tension sings.
I don’t mind where the ideas come from—but they have to go back to the tuning fork analogy. It has to chime.
In sum, this interview not only introduces Chris Blackburn’s editorial ethos but also sets the tone for what Narrativa360 aims to become—a fearless, intellectually honest platform that thrives on nuance, discomfort, and critical inquiry. It signals a break from formulaic media by championing clarity over spin, depth over noise, and questions over dogma. If this conversation is any indication, Narrativa360 won’t just report on the world’s fractures—it will challenge readers to think harder about what holds those cracks together.
