A Basic Rule When Conducting Interviews
I still live by a simple rule I learned many years ago in public radio.
If you checked out Writings for the Catholic Abbey to the Secular World you will see that I have a list of interviews. I greatly enjoy doing them and even writing them as well.
I edit the original conversation down from the raw recording I do during each one. If I offered just a transcript, the article would be two to five times longer and with the usual ‘um’s’ and ‘you knows’ that come with speaking. So they are edited down for clarification and for a concise message. The one exception is George Weigel who wrote his responses to my questions.
Occasionally, people mention suggestions of those to interview and I consider them. I may or may not act on the idea, it depends on whether or not I can produce the interview well or whether I should. For example, there are some I would not interview because I believe it would just be contentious even if I did not intend it to be.
One of my roots in media is WUMB-FM where the general manager Patricia Monteith had a rule that I follow to this day: She saw the radio station as a public service and taught that any guest on the airwaves must be treated as someone who is being served by a public company and is there to help inform others. My role would be to make sure that happened and not have the focus on me and my innovative ways to make a name for myself.
Therefore, whenever I interviewed a guest on the air, I was not to do “gotcha” journalism. Neither, by the way, did I want to do it. Pat wanted to see the person walk out happy to have been able to express their story on WUMB-FM.
One of my favorite interview memories was ofMichael Fair who at the time was the Commissioner of Corrections for the Dukakis Administration in Massachusetts. This was radio. No one saw that he stared me right in the eye throughout the entire one hour program interview. He was concerned about that same “gotcha” journalism found on other stations. He thought I I would do things like mute his microphone to make sure he only said what I wanted over the air.
I believe he did not understand enough about the mechanics of radio sound to know that was not possible. Sitting in the same studio, if I muted his microphone to silence him, my microphone would have to be muted as well or it would not work. Not only would listeners still hear him although from a distance, they would know I tried to mute him. Of course, it was a moot point (pun intended) as I never practiced that form of interview.
When the program ended, he was happy to find I never used “gotcha” journalism on him. Nevertheless, we touched every point that I planned to make.
Understand that this man was responsible for overseeing the prisons and their policies in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Prior to the show, I asked others in my community what they feel I should ask. One wanted to see prisoners suffer for their crimes and believed that such amenities as televisions and other “comforts” should be forbidden to them. It is clearly not my position but I used it in the interview.
My role as interviewer is to represent the public. I will ask questions that I know they want to hear not what I want to ask necessarily. I will even ask questions in which I know the answer because the point is my guest’s response. So I made sure I brought forth this question of the person who wanted to see prisoners suffer without tipping my hand that this was not my position. Mr. Fair explained that such a policy would endanger the public. Angry prisoners treated poorly become angrier prisoners coming out and they have a greater chance of doing worse things than before they entered. The public, he explained, is not protected.
Ironically, Michael Dukakis’ successor William Weld ran on that harsh treatment of prisoners platform.
I hit every challenging point I intended but did it respectfully and in a way that benefitted the audience. This is where my roots lie. It is also why my posted interviews may appear a bit different than others because my interviewing style comes from my roots in radio not from print journalism.
I did many other interviews on all kinds of subjects from safety to public policy.
None of my interviews were or will be “gotcha” journalism. I still live by the same rule I learned at WUMB-FM. These interviews are a public service to whomever reads them and, therefore, the subjects must be treated in that way.
Therefore, if I do interview someone, it will have to be in a way that I can make sure that I touch every point I think is important to my audience and do it in a way that will be respectful to the person regardless of where I stand on the subject. In fact, if I do my job well no one will know my position at all because the focus is on the interviewee.
If I had a subject who held positions that I abhor to the point that I would not be able to do the interview, I would pass on it. I would not interview him or her unless I could make it clear that I strongly disagree with his or her positions in a way that was not intimidating. I would let the persons respond in a way he or she felt comfortable and not threatened. I could not for example make it appear we agree when we don’t for the sake of making them feel good. I would have to make my point in a non-threatening way but one that was clear.
I have done it many times before in all kinds of situations so that is not difficult. The question is: “how will it come out in an interview?” That too has to be a consideration for those whom I choose to interview. Such people that I choose not to interview compose a tiny list, but they are there.
The principle also works in reverse. I appeared on international TV and radio on several venues but I also was invited onto shows by some national TV hosts and I said “No.” I do not feel in good faith I could appear on a program hosted by someone whom I could not treat with respect. I did it once and would not do it again just out of principle.
In either case, the interviews you read at Writings from the Catholic Abbey . . .are always as a service to the reader and the interviewee which I enjoy bringing forward.