Subject: Re: how to interview
From: jason varsoke (jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2000 - 11:04:21 EST
>From Scottie:
> An awful lot of interviews - both 'live' & on paper - develop
> into little more than cosy fan-&-idol book plugs or political
> party spinnings. The mutual strokings are justified as the most
> effective way of gentling out the truth. But what they more
> often produce are catcalls & mock vomitings from the imprisoned
> audience. All too often one is left with the suspicion of the two
> parties retiring afterwards to the green room or nearest pub for
> a short session of mutual congratulation at having put yet another
> one over on a gullible public.
> (There is, thank God, nothing paranoid about ME.)
In general I don't particularly like interviews. The questions are
banal and I don't really care why an outstanding writer is sleeping with a
14 yo girl and has a dog named after his ex-wife. However, I did
particularly like a reciently (Oct 1999) Esquire article on George
Clooney. Instead of the green room/pub being after the interview, it was
the interview. I'm not a particular fan of Clooney, but I was struck by
the photos that shouted Carey Grant in my mind. I also fell in love with
the title of the article and it's the reason why I bought it. "A Man
Among Men." Very Hemingway. Very Carver. Very me.
> The ones I enjoy & find most illuminating are - believe it or not -
> the ones spiced with abrasiveness. Nothing quite so hilarious as
> the moment when the chap stands up, pulls the microphone from
> his lapel & stalks out. Nothing so hilarious - or so revealing.
> It always seemed to me that Jeremy Paxman (BBC Television's
> Numero Uno political interviewer) gave the best advice to intending
> interviewers.
> 'Always ask yourself,' he said: 'Why is this lying bastard trying to
> tell
> me yet more lies?'
Scottie, I listen to the BBC all the time. The only name I really
recall is Zania Pedouy (sp!) who has the voice I'd like to report my
death to the world, or at least my parents. But I listen to the morning
interviewer of BBC's News Hour (i think that's the name of the morning
show) only because he gets my dander up. A few weeks ago he was
inteviewing a Russian man representing Russia and the conflict in Grosny.
The interviewer was bombastic and invective. Hardly professional. He
kept asking himself your question. I thought though the Russian was being
a little evasive he was being truthful about being evasive. They talked
about how the Doctors w/o Borders were saying the Russian army was hitting
non-strategic targets. The Russian replied, "It's the army's perogative
to decide what is strategic and what is not." I started cheering in the
car. You could here the interviewer almost fall back in his seat.
"Surely, it's not the army's perogative," he came back with, but it was
far too late. You could hear the Russian's buddhist smile, ear to ear.
The interviewer appeared like a naive kid who hadn't gotten his lolly.
In short I think your self-directed question works for lots of cases,
but there are times when everyone knows that this guy isn't going to give
you any more truth than he's supposed to, that the playing field is seeded
by lies. And the strategy falls flat. And personally, this guy just
seems whiney. I don't know if his name is Paxman. I doubt it.
Btw: Terry Gross (of NPR's Fresh Air) has a similar problem.
Sometimes she has an agena and probes sensitive areas without remorse. I
think the key to radio interviews is for you to make the interviewe and
the audience believe that you are simpathetic to the cause and tease out
the truth as you go. Christopher Leiden (of NPR's The Connection) is a
master of this. If you get the chance listen to him.
-jason
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:23 EST