h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
[Title changed]
Watch any news reporter interview a high-profile
personage on
their
show, one who has been cast in a negative light by the
media for
WHATEVER reason, and you'll see what I mean. Anderson
Cooper
invited the Syrian ambassador to appear as a guest on
his show,
and
he
boorishly interrupted and talked over the man
throughout
the
entire interview. I can understand calling him out on the
untrue
statements he made, but throughout the *entire*
interview he was
treated more like a hostage than a guest.
I realize after reading the linked article something that
hadn't
occurred to me previously. I was unaware of the time
constraints and the specifically planned questions the
interviewer needs time to ask. So to prevent having to
interrupt
to ask the next question, I propose that interviews
follow the
Oxford Style debate model. That is, the interviewer asks
his/her
question, and the guest has a predetermined length of
time
(say, 1-2 minutes, maybe longer depending on the time
available)
in which to phrase his/her response. During
that timeslot, the interviewer must remain silent unless
the
guest indicates that he has finished speaking. At the end
of the
two minutes, a bell is rung by a moderator and the guest
must
then stop speaking until the interviewer has asked his
next
question.
In the case of the interview linked below, in which the
reporter
had 10 minutes to ask her questions, she should have
realized
that 10 minutes was far too little time to get into the
serious
issues she wanted to bring up. She should have either
stuck to
simpler issues, prepared fewer questions, or negotiated
in
advance for more time.
This Oxford-style debate interview model is something
to which
interviewers and people in positions to be interviewed
(ie,
politicians, diplomats, and celebrities) would have to
adapt in
order for both sides to be able to get their points across
in a
more direct, less rambling manner. This, I believe, has
its own
benefits.
Differing standards of "polite" vs. "obsequious"
http://www.timesonl...s/article576295.ece
Videos widely available on the Web. [mouseposture, Aug 21 2011]
Why Interviewers are Rude
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Carole_Coleman
"she resorted to interrupting the President because she was afraid his stock answers would eat up all time she had for interview: "It was a filibuster of sorts. If I didn’t challenge him, the interview would be a wasted opportunity". [AntiQuark, Aug 21 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Granted, possibly, but more rant than idea I think. |
|
| |
Skillful interviewers can be polite, without being
deferential. Banning rudeness, though, would
force
interviewers of merely average ability to be
deferential. More harm than good, IMO.
|
|
| |
Also, distinguish //invited guests// from those
who
seek the interview as a platform from which to
make
a public statement.
|
|
| |
[edit] This was in response to an earlier version of
the idea. |
|
| |
Then the news would become one giant infomercial for corrupt politicians, capitalists, religious leaders, etc. Sort of like Fox news is today. |
|
| |
MP, any guest is there at the sole discretion of the TV show's
hosts. Yes, people may seek the interview but it is the reporter
who decides wether or not to allow that person to appear on his
show. If he accepts the interview request, then he is inviting the
person to appear as a guest on the show. Both sides have an
agenda. The guest wants to spread his message. The
interviewer wants to get him to say certain things that he can
use to make the guy look bad (or good). This is not an excuse
to forget our manners. The Syrian ambassador, while perhaps
being untruthful, was at least tactful and polite even while under
fire. I think he easily carried the moral highground throughout
the interview.
|
|
| |
As to the other point, only skilled interviewers have any
business appearing on TV.
|
|
| |
Anderson Cooper isn't an interviewer, he's a televized bully
with a large staff of writers. There are still a few unbiased
interviewers out there, mostly on NPR. |
|
| |
Oxford style? "Your starter for ten", "fingers on the buzzers" and "I'll have to hurry you..." |
|
| |
But what if the interviewee is just outright lying, and the interviewer knows it? Is the interviewer supposed to sit there for two minutes while the guy spews BS, or should he interrupt to say, "actually, you're full of crap." |
|
| |
How about waiting til he finishes (how much BS can you spew
in 2 minutes? Wait.... don't answer that) and keep count of the
untruths, then address them when he's done?
|
|
| |
"Ok now that you've spoken your peace, it's fact time. I haven't
seen what's going on in Syria with my own eyes because I went
there and your
guards prevented me from leaving the capital. I know your
snipers aren't just targetting armed gangs because there are
child corpses on TV with well-placed shots to the head. I know
your government is doing this, and not just a few rogue soldiers,
because it is NOT doing anything
to prevent it."
|
|
| |
And then he has 2 minutes to address these accusations, which
leaves little time for bullshit. |
|
| |
//Oxford style? "Your starter for ten", "fingers on the buzzers" and "I'll have to hurry you..."//
|
|
| |
Can't be po, I'm thinking JP questioning Michael Howard on Newsnight - not exactly what 21Q is suggesting.
|
|
| |
Queensbury Rules might be interesting too. |
|
| |
I once heard an anecdote from a British TV reporter working in the US, with a US crew, interviewing some controversial character for British TV.
The reporter was shocked when the cameraman asked if they were lighting the subject "for" or "against" - literally putting the interviewee in a bad light.
I find it difficult whenever I see "serious" US TV to comprehend how partisan some of the interviewers are. |
|
| |
It shocks me, too, although the BBC isn't much better. |
|
| |
Journalism isn't journalism anymore, it's sensationalism. It's
multi- media entertainment deceptively packaged as the
truth. I agree that the US media has been leading the
charge in that direction from the outset, but I wouldn't be
any less disgusted by it. This is part of the reason that [The
Alterother] only watches TV about once a month, unless
the Bruins are on a winning streak. |
|
| |
The sadder thing is how thin the packaging wrapper apparently has to be. |
|
| |
//the BBC isn't much better//
|
|
| |
I weep for the Beeb. It should be much better but, as you say, it isn't. |
|
| |