Having had few conversations with people over the last weeks about interview technique at Big Smoke it seems like a good time to pass on the theory, even if it’s still developing.
In the media generally there are two archetypal approaches to interviews. The old fashioned “and is there anything else you’d like to say Minister?” approach and the “but aren’t you just a lying scum bag Minister?” approach that is much in fashion these days. We’re not sure either approach gets the best out of the subject, nor does it inform the listener in the way that they might like to be informed.
One difficulty with the Paxman / Humphrey’s approach, apart from its single speed sneer, is that politicians are used to it and are therefore on the defensive. With trenches dug and big guns banging you’re frequently left with three minutes of headache inducing row and little else. It plays into a comfort zone and leaves no room to tease out any more than petty tribal point scoring.
Aside from the fact that it’s a bit rude to assume someone is always lying to you, if someone is worth talking to then it’s worth hearing what they have to say. No trick questions, no caustic interruptions, just space enough for them to say what they intend to say. The audience then has something with which to make up their minds without the interviewer always shoving their oar in every other word.
Once the subject has actually had a chance to say what they want to say then it’s worth pulling them up on contradictions or exploring difficulties with what they had to say. We don’t just want their press release after all.
That means having the luxury of a slightly longer interview, and possibly not going in for the kill every time you see an opening, but it’s a playoff worth making so that at least someone, somewhere is giving their interviewees enough of a chance to say what they think that we might actually learn something about them.
That’ the theory at least.
0 Comments
You can be the first one to leave a comment.