If you want to know how to conduct an interview and don't want to read anymore of this post, here's the secret: keep yourself out of it.
Gonzo journalism, made famous by Hunter S. Thompson in a 1970 article about the Kentucky Derby, has no objective intentions. The writer ends up in the story as much as anything else with no feeble attempt to be agnostic in the delivery of facts to the reader.
This doesn't seem unusual today.
We have a culture of narcissism in which we have generations who don’t recognize even the light levels of narcissism running through their own social streams. In this world, gonzo journalism seems normal. Our understanding of the world, nation, and people around is done through self. I don't know that human beings have ever not done this, but with ample communication making everyone a content creator or publisher, it is more noticeable.
Though Thompson's crowd did quite a blatant (and often hilarious) version of self-infused journalism, 50 years later the technique has watered down enough that it's trickled into almost all content and we don't realize it's happening.
Determining the difference between opinion pieces and information is now tough. Even non-fiction books of a certain type tend to self-reference or refer to the same people who are referencing back; it's a bit of a circle that you can trace through the blurbs that promote the book.
The propensity to grab at "studies" to show something is true is a laudable attempt to factualize the information, but studies are tricky. Most of us don't know how to really interpret them, and we don't tend to share studies that show the opposite of the point we're trying to make (and there is nearly always at least one study that does this). It's the reason why you see the bookstore shelves packed with health and diet books that carry mutually exclusive ideas but swear they are the right method and have the proof to convince you.
The Lone Prairie Blog is essentially an opinion column and always has been, even if factual links are included. That should be obvious, but I worry it is not. Because our news comes through social media feeds, we are delivered the content through reader experience (e.g. here's my opinion about this link) and read content created through writer experience (e.g. how it felt, what I thought), and the blurring effect is complete.
Perhaps we could argue about whether or not that taints information or makes it more believable because it is humanized. In an age where people are actively pursuing platform and influence, making word-of-mouth less trustworthy than ever, I would lean towards taint.
So, if you are a writer are doing an interview and wish to avoid these issues, I have some tips for you based on my experience writing for a newspaper and some of the writing I've done for my own books or for clients. Even if you are not a writer and doing an interview for different purposes, these techniques can still apply.
Tips For Writers On How To Conduct An Interview
1) Don't share your own personal stories with the interviewee. The interview is about the interviewee. It’s not a “true” conversation where there’s back and forth sharing. The goal is to extract from the interviewee and encourage deeper information exchange under what appears to be the guise of conversation but is really about gaining access to their thoughts.
2) If the interviewee says something that resonates with you, see #1. It’s fine to encourage the interviewee to continue that line of that thought by saying that it resonated with you but don’t use that as a time to share your story to show them or make them hear your expression of feelings. Remember, that eats up their time and adds bloat to the recording that you, the writer, has to go through later. Time is money. Stay on task.
3) Connect personally through minimal personal exposure. It’s understandable that some interviewees need different levels of connection to feel safe to share, but again, it should be done in a way that doesn’t fill the conversation with the interviewer's opinions or stories
Example: The interviewee says something that strikes a chord. The interviewer could encourage the interviewee to continue by saying “I do understand. That's so interesting. It’s similar to my experience. Could you explain how______?” and let that be it. We do not need excessive details from the interviewer.
Get the personal chit chat and connection done BEFORE the official interview and recording begins. Have your coffee or tea and a few laughs. Then noticeably shift to getting started and down to business. This has worked well for me time and again.
4) The exception to #1 is if the interviewee asks for personal interaction. Even then, the interviewer needs to keep it short, sweet, and get things back on point, directing it back at the interviewee. They may be testing the water to see if you’re a “friendly” with their viewpoint. Establish what needs to be established so they feel safe to continue, and no more. This isn’t lying; the interviewee is safe with you. Whatever your thoughts are about their thoughts, you are a curious agnostic for the benefit of readers.
5) Find ways to phrase questions and information queries that don’t require a long preamble. Prefacing a question with a long personal story should only be done on very rare occasions. How the question is delivered affects how it is answered. You don't want to frustrate your interviewee by talking to long. If they interrupt you, let them talk. At the same time, questions should flow naturally, not like bullets of inquiry.
6) Be wary of coloring the interviewee’s idea. Too much personal interjection outside of the scope of helping an interviewee find a word, phrase, or idea can actually alter what the interviewee would have said, particularly if they have a personality that isn’t strong and is susceptible to suggestion. You can lead an interviewee astray through leading questions or your emotional response to what they said.
7) The questions that are in the back of your head are in the back of the reader’s head. Ask those questions. Even if they veer from the prepared list or outline. Don’t let the interviewee get mushy on key points or repeatedly avoid those questions the reader wants to know because it’ll only be more work later in follow-up or fudging. Your reader will notice the information that's missing.
Write down the questions that come naturally to you on the topic before going in. We all have the flood of questions that comes when someone raises a theory. Write those down before going into any planning. Ask them. If you’re wondering, others will too. Don’t force yourself to overly-planned question lists that seem to hit really high-level theories and Big Topics. Write down what's pinging your curiosity.
8) Push for clarity of thought from the interviewee. Depending on the scenario (i.e. article interview, book interview), it’s OK to ask them to summarize or list the points they are trying to make. This is especially the case if the product of the interview is for their benefit. If they can’t, then do it for them and ask if that’s what they would say, or task them to provide you with that later. I like the former approach as it saves me time. I've learned some interviewees don't always respond back in a timely manner after the initial interview.
Most people know what they don’t want rather than what they want. If an interviewee says “I don’t like what you've written, that's not what I meant” the answer shouldn't be "don't worry, we can fix that later" and throw a note in there to fix it. The response should be “why not? What should I change it to?” That leads to lots of wasting time with drafts as bit by bit they scratch out what they don’t like until they are led to what they do. Get them to what they do want faster in the interview by speaking back to them what you're understanding so they can hear if that's correct.
Help the interviewee understand their own opinions. Help them get to the core reason for their dislike if possible. You’re helping them towards their own breakthrough. If they haven’t developed the ideas enough to know and are reverting to only knowing what they don’t want, it’s fair to ask them to get back to you and think on that. If they can never get to a solid place on something, it doesn't go into the final product.
9) Always always always get the W’s. Never leave an interview without knowing who, what, where, when, and why. People tell stories in nonlinear fashion. They name drop, toss out titles, everything. They don't spell out names. They interrupt themselves, wander off to another point…if it won’t ruin the flow, stop and ask. If it will, jot it down and wait until the interviewee comes up for air, or at the end as a kind of wrap-up, and ask in a non-awkward fashion for clarification. For Christian authors, get the “where in the Bible is that?” If it's a news story, get factual dates as much as they can provide. You may be able to supplement this through online searches later, but if not, all you'll have to go on is your interview. If they can’t remember, make a note for them or you to find it.
Take photos if possible, if the interviewee allows. You may be taking photos to accompany what you're writing (be sure to get necessary permissions). But even if you won't use the photos in publication, take photos for reference. You may need to describe the setting, the interior, the building, etc. for context. This may require trust from your interviewee, so always ask and explain how the images will be used. Respect privacy.
Get source material if applicable. If they're talking about photos, documents, clippings, or something of that nature, get a copy or at least take a photo so you can properly reference it in your work. If the interviewee tosses out a reference to a source, see if they have it and you can include it.
10) Don't let important information get lost in wandering conversation. It’s not rude to bring them back to an original point they were making that they wandered from. They had something to say before they interrupted themselves. They are trusting the interviewer to do this for them.
11) Come ready to listen, not talk. Again, it’s not about you. Be an active listener, not a conversationalist waiting your turn to chime in with your own opinions and stories. And if you’re in a mindset to listen and do so carefully, you will be attuned to discrepancies, impossibilities, cognitive dissonance, conflicting theories, and mutually exclusive ideas. When you get the nagging sense that’s happening like that, ask. They might not even realize they’ve done that, or perhaps they simply told a story wrong and would correct it.
12) Remember what an interview is. It is not a conversation or relational connection. It's generally not give and take conversation. It’s information gathering at its core. It’s helping the interviewee come face to face with their thoughts and the gaps therein. While the relational connection can be there to encourage communication, it should flow mostly from one direction. Interviewers should not be looking to the interviewee for friendship, validation, or anything else. Interviewing a counselor isn’t a counseling session, interviewing a preacher isn’t a spiritual session, and interviewing a coach isn’t a coaching session. You are there to get information out of their head into your hands.
Interviews for articles, books, or other similar output are not about you.
When I started at the newspaper all those years ago, the woman who quickly trained me in (one afternoon, then it was off to the races) hit on this to a lighter extent. But she was correct. And she was good at it.
Over the years, watching and listening to videos and podcasts, I've noticed that women tend to struggle with this the most, inserting themselves and their stories into an interview. Generally, women want to connect with people in a way that lends itself to this. But a good interviewer puts all focus on the subject, not on self.
When this happens, I've noticed a few things, both in those videos and podcasts, and material I work with from different clients:
Sometimes they derail the interviewee and cause them to lose their train of thought.
Sometimes they shut the interviewee down because of a personality that doesn’t care for personal stories.
Sometimes the interviewee gets annoyed because they thought they were being interviewed and instead find they have to listen.
Some podcasters are terrible for this, turning an interview into a soliloquy where the guest is actually just another pair of ears.
Tucker Carlson and Jan Jekielek do a pretty good job as an interviewer. People used to hold up Barbara Walters as a gold standard (mostly because she could make people cry). Ted Koppel did great job on Nightline, though he often served as a moderator in the sense he inserted himself so little into the conversation. I don’t listen to Joe Rogan because I don’t care for him so I can’t speak to that.
I get it. Today’s news shows and podcasts are all about overtalking each other to make your voice heard more than someone else’s, or informal buddy parties that normalize mushy interviews. This has created the problem where we can't seem to interview a person without making it personal. We’re a world dying for people to hear us. An open pair of ears is a gold mine.
But if you're a writer with a schedule, limited time, and a desire to respect your clients or interview subjects both during the interview and afterwards in creating the end product, it's important to stick to that list of 12 things to remember.
If that's too much to hold onto, then here's your simple list:
It's not about you.
Close your mouth.
Listen.
Comentarios