Media Flaws

Some call it the interview but from experience I have been reduced to calling it the interfew.

Interfews – whether they be for jobs, research, journalistic or random – are what I’ve always thought to be the cheat-sheets of getting to know ones subject in a short space of time. Never has there been an easier way to source information than to pick up the phone and schedule an interfew.

It’s really that easy.

But for most it isn’t.

“How come you always get the juicy bits from an interviewee?” asked a fellow scribe at a recent conference.

“I don’t know!” I replied.

Actually, I knew but was too lazy to reply. You see journalism is no longer what it used to be. These days you’ll find that journalists have egos huger (bigger) than their interviewees. Don’t be surprised if a journalist asks you “Do you know who I am!?” - it’s even worse when they’re the On-TV-Types - but that’s a story for another day.

The problem lies not only with egos, but largely on the enabling technologies or the means of capturing stories, representations, etcetera. Whilst technologies converge towards being smaller and smaller – journalists are more inclined to go for the bigger and bigger cameras, microphones, etc. There is a stubbornness to accept that the emerging smaller gadgets have finally caught up quality-wise. Bigger is not always better in media. For example, let me go back to that inquisitive journalist at the conference, the main reason why I always get that extra sound bite or sincerity out of the interviewee is largely because I use equipment that warrants an “Are you serious?” look from my subjects. My microphone is no bigger than my index finger and my recorder is no bigger than my palm and the camera is half that size. And the quality? Unbelievably clear and 100% broadcast quality.

The thing about interviewees is that when you say you’re going to interview them they usually slip into interview mode and regurgitate what they told the other journalists or scribbled last night. When you come with such lesser-intimidating recording devices or inconspicuous tools – you’re interviewee somewhat relaxes. And this is when you can nail them, as they easily forget your vocation. Whereas, with bigger tools, one can’t exactly forget they’re speaking on the record - what with a 2m Tripod and 25kg camera propped in front of them – they simply can’t forget. And the responses will be as rigid as the bolts that hold up your tripod.

It’s really that easy.

Moving away from the techno side of things and into the actual interview. The biggest pitfall of any interviewer has to be the elusive foreign concept of L.I.S.T.E.N.I.N.G. Yes. You heard me right. Many a time you’ll find interviewers (journalists, researchers, etc) evading this most important component of the interview. And it all begins with an interviewer’s prep. These days many interviewers already know what they want from an interviewee – they just have to get them to say it in the manner in which they want to hear it. Quit while you’re ahead if you’re one of these. Yes, one might have or has to have interview objectives, but, but try listening to your interviewee and see how you can manipulate what they’ve said. Walking into an interview with preconceived ideas is fatal and closes all gaps for ‘news’ or the new. Just listen and follow through on whatever new news are presented. Yes, you can follow your scripted questions, but let these only serve you as a guide – the rest should all flow and feed off your interviewees responses. And this feeding off of course only works when you're asking open questions or questions that do not simply require a one-word answer.

It’s really that easy.