RL3 On The Subject of Interviews

Sometimes when I am reporting I have to remind myself that journalism isn't necessarily as linear or as logical as the end results may make it seem. As the "Do's and Don'ts of Interviewing" says, sometimes you have to make a call for the most minute of details. That's the sort of thing that calls out my insecurities. Even when an interview goes over OK and I'm feeling positive about the experience, I crack up over calling back to clear a tiny detail up. What it takes to get what we take for granted in the news everyday takes experience and it takes plenty of effort, in with that effort is carried emotions that are invisible to the consumer.

Given my jitters, I do think I have the capacity to be a decent interviewer. But it depends on two things: experience and punctuality. I must do all of these things within time of deadline. I've been in situations where essential phone calls are done just the night before and I bet the person on the other line can hear my exasperation. When the call is over I am in great relief, but I feel wistful about the interview that I could've had. But, then again, this also depends on insecurities that are at the core of inexperience. I'm looking forward to doing more interviews consistently.

Listening back to some of my earlier interviews I've done over the years, many are filled with vocal compulsions like saying "yes", and "right" as a sort of rhetorical agreement. I contrive these mannerisms to make the interviewer feel comfortable, but the truth is I am only trying to assuage my own doubts. Eye contact and nodding are more than enough to get an interviewee's confidence.

I like how this handbook makes the case for silence. While I'd like the maintain a fine pace, getting the job done right is far more important. "Awkward" silences is all part of the fiction of radio and television. Listeners feel entitled to a pace that generally goes against adequate reporting. Why worry about it? The end result can be as measured as you can edit it to be. But don't compromise your interviews with an unnecessary need for expeditiousness.

One of my biggest motivations is to become a better listener. I want to be able to process these things quickly and turn them into something useful. I'd like to see to good answers and provide good follow up questions in hindsight. I also want to be a better speaker. Both are going to take plenty of experience.

Regarding Rule #8, "Ask questions that make people think instead of react": The people's interest has to be at the heart of every story. To take situations as they are is simply prefunctory and do not provoke any sort of response from the reader. It just becomes white noise on a newspaper or on the internet. I've had this experience in an early draft of a town meeting I wrote about last week. I covered the items on the agenda, but I was missing a substantive public reaction, which I did have, but I didn't use very well. What good am I as a reporter if I don't make the human interest front and center? I might as well have publised the agenda in that case. In any case, I have to try to assess what the public will gain the most from the thing that I am covering.

I want to approach every interview with earnestness and with a willingness to listen. But it all depends on my ability to do the job right. I need to carry experience and punctuality on my sleeve.