"The key skills of introductory journalism courses - research, critical
thinking, organizing, and clear expression - are also the key skills that the
university tries, but often fails, to teach all students as part of their
liberal education. Indeed journalists have refined these skills to a much
higher degree than have people in many other disciplines." Betty Medsger, Winds of Change
Wednesday, September 07, 2016
Interviewing Ethics and Interviewing Technique
Watch this interview from around 2:30 to around 5:30. In the comments section, tell me what you think of the interviewer's approach. Those who comment later can comment on earlier comments!
The interviewer was subtly aggressive by asking the same question multiple times of different variations. He was determined but also trying to be "respectful".
Like Brianna says, the interviewer displays a very aggressive attitude.
You can just tell he already has a strong viewpoint and bias and its seeping through because at some points he was cutting the interviewer off and making it a hostile environment. I could see where he tries to control himself, but I can just tell he went in there with a strong opinion. It's okay to have an opinion, but when you have the privilege to interview someone, you should try to stay neutral (but I guess it depends on the type of show or news people). He already had an opinion and already knew how he wanted to write the story, or display it, and it's apparent. And, it's also altering his professionalism.
I think the interviewer did the right thing. Journalists do their best to uncover the honest truth, and I consider this to be good journalism. His approach was rather fair because the interviewee clearly didn't answer the question. It's good to be persistent, but I'm not sure if the question was of the utmost importance.
I think the interviewer was trying to get the man to say what he wanted him to say by asking him yes or no questions. I also think that the questions were a little unfair because he was asking him if he thinks the other man was a liar or if he threatened him which can't really be answered other than yes or no. I also think it was smart for him to say a quote of his before he asked his question because then the man couldn't say the he never said those things. The journalist did a good job because you could see the man was getting a little uncomfortable and flustered which showed he did his job.
I think that this was really smart interviewing. Most of the questioning was phrased using quotes, rather than the interviewer using his own opinions. He also was good at not backing down, even when the interviewee didn't answer the question, but also doing it in a calm, collected way.
I also think that the interviewer did the right thing by repeating the same question over and over. The interviewee did not cooperate and dodged the question, not answering it at all. The interviewer's job is to ask the difficult questions others don't have the opportunity to and the interviewee's job is to answer those questions asked. I think the interviewer was being very respectful and professional despite the constant repetition of the question.
Journalist did a great job of asking the right questions persistently, all while remaining very respectful and professional, which increased his credibility. Even after hearing the same response multiple times from the interviewee, the interviewer continually asked for clarifications, and posed questions in a way that makes the response more interesting. The fact that his questions built off of other responses shows that he's a good listener and he knows what he's talking about.
I agree with Alexandra that this was a smart interview because the journalist used quotes rather than his own opinions. When the interviewee wouldn't answer his question, the interviewer was determined and persistent to get his answer and the truth. His approach of repeating the same question over and over was intense and persistent which came off as intimidating for the interviewee. Maybe if the interviewer used a more subtle and comfortable approach for both of them, then he would've gotten his answers faster and gained the interviewee's trust.
I think the interviewer was aggressive in repeatedly asking the same question, but he did it in an ethical way. He was trying to get a certain answer out of the interviewee that the interviewee was dancing around, so he was doing what he could to get it out of him. I personally believe it to be a strong quality. What I don't agree with is the part about "instructing him to lie," that, to me, seemed like a loaded question that could've been phrased better.
The interviewer was persistent with his direction. Not letting the interviewee out of the hot seat, he kept at it with the same question until he got his desired answer. Stubborn, but respectful, he rattled the interviewee while staying credible. His repetitiveness was great for throwing the interviewee off of his game, making him impatient and frustrated, to ultimately get the answer he was looking for the whole time.
I like how the interviewer was persistent throughout the interview. By repeatedly asking the same question it exposed how the man didn't want to give a straight forward answer so he wouldn't look bad. The interviewer asked the tough question his audience wanted to know and pushed the man to get an answer. The man's refusal to answer it directly and continuously dance around the question is important for the audience to see as well. By putting the man under pressure and respectfully yet forcefully asking the question over and over again he revealed important information to his audience.
The interviewer was very persistent and determined in his questioning. He did not back down even despite the interviewee repeating himself continuously. He asked the same questions repeatedly which put quite the pressure on the interviewee. He stayed professional and focused on basing the interview with quotes and evidence and not his his personal opinion on the matter.
This was a pretty entertaining interview snippet. The journalist kept asking the same question and even apologized for being rude and yet the politician continued to dance around the question. The politician even went so far as to tell the interviewer his question was irrelevant and then answered a different question that the interviewer didn't even ask him. It's ethical because journalists have a duty to keep the public informed, and this means helping untangle the web politicians spin to keep the public confused and complacent.
The interviewer did an excellent job of ensuring that his interviewee stayed on-topic and challenged him when he avoided answering the tough questions. Although the interviewer's style could be described as aggressive, he simply asked the interviewee to comment on both his own words and the words of his opponents, which I think was an effective way for the interviewer to get a strong reaction out of the interviewee. Additionally, the fact that he repeated the same question ("Did you threaten to overrule him?") in order to get an answer and said blatantly that the interviewee had not answered the question demonstrated a strong desire to find the truth and get past the layers of non-answers that the Home Secretary gave. I think that, although the interviewee may not have been "happy" with the journalist following the interview, the journalist did his job and managed to deliver good reporting to his audience .
14 comments:
The interviewer was subtly aggressive by asking the same question multiple times of different variations. He was determined but also trying to be "respectful".
Like Brianna says, the interviewer displays a very aggressive attitude.
You can just tell he already has a strong viewpoint and bias and its seeping through because at some points he was cutting the interviewer off and making it a hostile environment. I could see where he tries to control himself, but I can just tell he went in there with a strong opinion. It's okay to have an opinion, but when you have the privilege to interview someone, you should try to stay neutral (but I guess it depends on the type of show or news people). He already had an opinion and already knew how he wanted to write the story, or display it, and it's apparent. And, it's also altering his professionalism.
I think the interviewer did the right thing. Journalists do their best to uncover the honest truth, and I consider this to be good journalism. His approach was rather fair because the interviewee clearly didn't answer the question. It's good to be persistent, but I'm not sure if the question was of the utmost importance.
I think the interviewer was trying to get the man to say what he wanted him to say by asking him yes or no questions. I also think that the questions were a little unfair because he was asking him if he thinks the other man was a liar or if he threatened him which can't really be answered other than yes or no. I also think it was smart for him to say a quote of his before he asked his question because then the man couldn't say the he never said those things. The journalist did a good job because you could see the man was getting a little uncomfortable and flustered which showed he did his job.
I think that this was really smart interviewing. Most of the questioning was phrased using quotes, rather than the interviewer using his own opinions. He also was good at not backing down, even when the interviewee didn't answer the question, but also doing it in a calm, collected way.
I also think that the interviewer did the right thing by repeating the same question over and over. The interviewee did not cooperate and dodged the question, not answering it at all. The interviewer's job is to ask the difficult questions others don't have the opportunity to and the interviewee's job is to answer those questions asked. I think the interviewer was being very respectful and professional despite the constant repetition of the question.
Journalist did a great job of asking the right questions persistently, all while remaining very respectful and professional, which increased his credibility. Even after hearing the same response multiple times from the interviewee, the interviewer continually asked for clarifications, and posed questions in a way that makes the response more interesting. The fact that his questions built off of other responses shows that he's a good listener and he knows what he's talking about.
I agree with Alexandra that this was a smart interview because the journalist used quotes rather than his own opinions. When the interviewee wouldn't answer his question, the interviewer was determined and persistent to get his answer and the truth. His approach of repeating the same question over and over was intense and persistent which came off as intimidating for the interviewee. Maybe if the interviewer used a more subtle and comfortable approach for both of them, then he would've gotten his answers faster and gained the interviewee's trust.
I think the interviewer was aggressive in repeatedly asking the same question, but he did it in an ethical way. He was trying to get a certain answer out of the interviewee that the interviewee was dancing around, so he was doing what he could to get it out of him. I personally believe it to be a strong quality.
What I don't agree with is the part about "instructing him to lie," that, to me, seemed like a loaded question that could've been phrased better.
The interviewer was persistent with his direction. Not letting the interviewee out of the hot seat, he kept at it with the same question until he got his desired answer. Stubborn, but respectful, he rattled the interviewee while staying credible. His repetitiveness was great for throwing the interviewee off of his game, making him impatient and frustrated, to ultimately get the answer he was looking for the whole time.
I like how the interviewer was persistent throughout the interview. By repeatedly asking the same question it exposed how the man didn't want to give a straight forward answer so he wouldn't look bad. The interviewer asked the tough question his audience wanted to know and pushed the man to get an answer. The man's refusal to answer it directly and continuously dance around the question is important for the audience to see as well. By putting the man under pressure and respectfully yet forcefully asking the question over and over again he revealed important information to his audience.
The interviewer was very persistent and determined in his questioning. He did not back down even despite the interviewee repeating himself continuously. He asked the same questions repeatedly which put quite the pressure on the interviewee. He stayed professional and focused on basing the interview with quotes and evidence and not his his personal opinion on the matter.
This was a pretty entertaining interview snippet. The journalist kept asking the same question and even apologized for being rude and yet the politician continued to dance around the question. The politician even went so far as to tell the interviewer his question was irrelevant and then answered a different question that the interviewer didn't even ask him. It's ethical because journalists have a duty to keep the public informed, and this means helping untangle the web politicians spin to keep the public confused and complacent.
The interviewer did an excellent job of ensuring that his interviewee stayed on-topic and challenged him when he avoided answering the tough questions. Although the interviewer's style could be described as aggressive, he simply asked the interviewee to comment on both his own words and the words of his opponents, which I think was an effective way for the interviewer to get a strong reaction out of the interviewee. Additionally, the fact that he repeated the same question ("Did you threaten to overrule him?") in order to get an answer and said blatantly that the interviewee had not answered the question demonstrated a strong desire to find the truth and get past the layers of non-answers that the Home Secretary gave. I think that, although the interviewee may not have been "happy" with the journalist following the interview, the journalist did his job and managed to deliver good reporting to his audience .
Post a Comment