Chapter 9 – Interesting point
Video One
Video Two
I find the prospect of interviewing as a whole quite interesting and scary. I think it is an art and the feelings you get during the process of an interview can determine how the interview turns out. I decided to compare two interviews one from Andrew Denton, an interviewer I admire, and one from Sonia Kruger who I believe has a bad interviewing style.
Admittedly these two interviews are on different levels in terms of subject matter, but I viewed several interviews from each interviewer and in terms of style the clips are both fair representations. The first clip is extracts from an interview by Andrew Denton with Major Michael Mori the man charged with the defence of David Hicks. The second is an interview by Sonia Kruger with Australian singer Shannon Noll.
I will look briefly at the positives and negatives of each interview.
Andrew Denton is a relaxed interviewer and creates a comfortable atmosphere before the interview even starts. This is very important as the interviewee needs to feel at ease in order to reveal information. In Kruger’s interview she appears tense and although she attempts to include humour it is short lived as it is clear she is not at ease. Denton brings in humour as well but allows the subject to elaborate and usually leads on to stronger issues. A great example of Denton using humour to lead into more important topics can be seen in this quote:
“ANDREW DENTON: You have been far from quiet about this. I’m assuming your next posting will be somewhere to the Arctic Circle.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I hope not.
ANDREW DENTON: That’s what everybody wants to know that I talk to. Whenever your name comes up they go, “Wow, that guy’s killed his career.””
In the two clips it is evident that the interviewee is affected by the attitude and body language of the interviewer and at times they even mirror it.
Another important quality in an interviewer is the use of open ended questions, while Kruger’s questions require little thought and less detailed answers, Denton’s allow his subject to elaborate. An example of this is “Why is David so valuable or so dangerous?” Which could be taken any way and would bring out the personal opinion of the subject.
In Kruger’s interview questions are short and when the answer is given another question is asked on a different topic. While Denton has a way of making people feel at ease he also effectively applies pressure on important topic through repetition and emphasis:
“ANDREW DENTON: Do you believe that there is any chance at all he can get a fair trial in America?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: If they use the US court martial system he’d get a fair trial. If they allowed the system to run like it should have, having the independent judiciary pick the judges and getting away from the Department of Defence General Council office controlling every aspect of it.
ANDREW DENTON: But you’ve said that because this is a political thing, the chances of that happening are very small.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: It’s very difficult. I mean especially – you’re talking four and a half years later, let alone – I mean that time – justice delayed is justice denied. Can you give someone a fair trial five years after the events? Is it even possible?”
This not only shows Denton reinforcing the point of the interview, it also demonstrates his listening skills and his ability to follow on questions ad lib. This is probably due to experience and good preparation on the subject matter.
Kruger on the other hand shows her lack of experience or preparation by failing to correctly pronounce a name correctly and having to be prompted by the interviewee. While both interviews are different Denton’s invites interest through informed, clever and witty interviewing techniques and Kruger’s ineffective interviewing technique makes her interview trivial and uninteresting.
Chapter 9 – Discussion Questions
Chapter 9 – Discussion questions
- Which would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is clear but is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?
I would use the first quote because misquoting could result in bad consequences or legal action. Yet I would attempt to fix it up either by paraphrasing or by cutting it to make a legible quote which still represents the sentiment expressed by the speaker. If possible I would try to contact the speaker to try to obtain a more appropriate quote. By using the inexact quote to make the speaker sound more eloquent would be misrepresentation and would take away the credibility of the story. If the speaker was a well-known figure people would see straight through the quote. Even if it was intended to aid the speaker, it would actually be doing them a disservice.
2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with a threat of ‘public exposure’ to get important public information?
Yes. Although I wouldn’t use the words ‘intimidate’ and ‘threat’. I think it would be ok to let the source know that if they refuse to comment on an important issue which concerns him/her it will be reported in the story and will reflect badly on them. Yet if it was a major issue and you were suggesting that in return for information you would not expose their wrongdoings, I think that is a bit corrupt. If information is in the public interest it should be exposed, and if the person involved refuses to comment that will only reflect badly on them.
3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist – male or female – to use ‘personal chemistry’ to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake?
Yes it is reasonable, although not in the way it is implied here. Personal chemistry is a powerful thing and can be used in a non-sexual way. When two people have a sort of chemistry it means they get on well together. This can mean they find it easy to talk to each other or feel comfortable in each other’s presence. Being able to connect with people on this level is an important skill all journalists should possess. If this ‘personal chemistry’ makes a source more willing to cooperate and release information, I think this is perfectly acceptable. The problem is the line between chemistry and flirting and how blurred it becomes in the process. If a journalist is is using inappropriate, sexually orientated behaviour to get information, I think it is wrong. There is a fine line, and it is important not to confuse a trusting and amiable relationship with manipulation and visa-versa.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?
If a journalist becomes to close to a source this could be seen as manipulation or indecent behaviour. It could have legal ramifications or could severely effect the journalist’s reputation. For example if a journalist pretended to sympathise with a source and used this to get information which they would later use against that source. The source is likely to be angry and feel betrayed. Also if the public found out about this manipulation they would feel cheated.
Another point is, just like any situation in which two people are very close one is going to be affected by whatever happens to the other. If a nurse forms an attachment to a patient, then the patient dies the nurse will suffer emotionally. If a journalist forms an attachment with a source then whatever happens to that source will have an affect on the journalist’s emotional state.
5. Who is the most inarticulate, word-mangling public figure regularly in the news at present? Should you feel sorry for them and clean up their direct quotes or let them stew in their own frying pan?
I would have to say George Bush, for the simple reason that he comes across as such an extremely stupid person. Yes, I dislike the man and I am writing with an extreme bias. But it would be wrong if I ‘mis-underestimated’ him, after-all he is the ‘master of low expectations’. Let’s have a look at his good qualities:
- He seemed to amuse himself at the OPEC summit in Austria this year.
- He is a very honest man “I’m going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I’m smart on the subject.”
- He likes magic: “I’ve been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times.”
- He admits his faults: “Putting up with me requires a lot of patience.”
- He is caring: “And my concern, David, is several.”
- He is hardworking: “And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.”
- He has a “half-glass-full mentality”
- He has a sixth-sense: “I talk to the families who die.”
- He is a good loser: “The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done.”
- He is logical: “One has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing your same cards.”
- And he is always looking ahead: “You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone.”
Yes, I would let him fry. But even if I did like the man I think it is important for the public to understand the education or lack thereof of their president. It would be misrepresentation to ‘tidy’ up his quotes.
