With the change in the news format to the widespread use of journalist panels to interpret and comment on the news, we are all bombarded with hundreds and hundreds of examples of broadcasting interviewers and respondents. Some of them are extraordinarily talented and insightful, some of them so painful and tortuous to listen to, one almost has to turn the tv/radio/cell phone off.
What does it take to make a good on-line/on-air presence?
1. Ask open-ended questions. When an interviewer asks a close-ended question that can be answered with "yes" or "no," they are demonstrating their lack of skill and education. Sure there are times when an interviewer wants to nail down a respondent by "forcing" them into a yes/no response. This is more common in political interviews than other places. That said, when an interviewer wants to get some perspective and human interest, a yes/no question is the kiss of death.
2. Ask sensitive questions. Asking "How are you feeling?" is one we often hear in the midst of a tragedy of one kind or another. "Your child was just killed. How are you feeling?" C'mon! Not the time and place. Have you ever been appalled by the questions asked on national television? OUR feelings at the time are annoyance, even outrage at the insensitivity. Perhaps we should let the interviewee choose how deeply and personally to respond. "Tell us, please, what happened?" Another less invasive option might be, "What's your assessment of the situation leading up to the event? What premonitions, if any, did you have?" "How will you and your family plan to grieve/mourn this event?" I realize many interviewees are dumbstruck in front of a camera, and it's not always easy to get someone to open up on camera despite the way that most humans gravitate to them. And this is where a journalist demonstrates his or her skill or lack thereof. The choice of interviewee is important. Some pre-interview conversation will help the interviewer gauge how much they will have to "lead" the respondent--or whether they should seek someone else to reflect the situation.
3. Be clear and eliminate "meaningless fillers." Two of the world's foremost experts on the golf swing are Hank Haney and David Leadbetter. As an avid golfer, I've read their books. So, I was eager to hear their exchange on national radio (XM golf channel) recently. After five minutes, the language was so tortuous, so painful to listen to, I had to turn it off. It seemed they both had attended the same broadcasting seminar--and came out with identical styles. The number of a) affected stammering (I, I, I, etc.), b) "I mean"s, c) "Look!"s and d) "You knows" completely overwhelmed whatever content they were trying to convey. I greatly respect these men--and their radio speaking style was nearly unintelligible. One day later, I listened to an interview of Adam Scott, a globally famous player. In contrast, his language was clear, concise, almost completely devoid of fillers (ZERO uh's, um's, look's, I mean's, and stammering). This was sooo refreshing by comparison. Now, Scott is not a professional broadcaster (although he is doing some), and one could argue that Haney and Leadbetter are--or are trying to be. You might say, lighten up, Jim! Okay. I stuttered so badly in high school, I couldn't get two words out back to back. I'm told it was torture listening to me in church or conversation. I worked on it. And made huge changes. Maybe that's why this bugs me. If Haney and Leadbetter would work on this the way they ask aspiring golfers to work on drills to improve their golf swings, they could improve their broadcast presence by leaps and bounds. I hope they will, because they have so much to offer.
4. Don't over-contextualize or interrupt. Many interviewers try to set the context of the interview so much that they leave little time for the respondent to speak. Most of us like to hear ourselves talk and express our views. The role of an interviewer, however, is to draw out the views of the subject. On TV and radio, one may need to give one sentence of context--but a whole paragraph is often distracting--and confusing to the subject: "Which if any question in there did he/she want me to comment on?" The interviewer in the Adam Scott interview is a high energy individual and could hardly contain himself from interrupting and offering his point of view. If interviewers remember than the public wants to hear from their subjects, not the interviewers, and can frame clear and concise open-ended questions, their interviews will have much more impact.
5. Delivery style matters as much as content. The point here is that those in the public eye have a responsibility to be professional, not only in their content, but also in their delivery. Particularly those who are conducting the interviews, the onus is on continuous skill development so that interview #1,000 is much better than interview #10 was. We listeners, trained and lay alike, can and will choose whether to continue listening. We vote with our choices. "Stay with us" is not enough.
6. Pay attention to your grammar. "They gave Thom and I a good interview." No, no, no. One of the simplest English grammar principles is the difference between nominative and objective cases. Journalists should know that difference. "They gave I a good interview?" Nope. Objective case there. There are millions of people in the world trying to learn English by listening to radio and TV and watching movies. Please be good examples.
I once had a license plate that read "Be BETR." My intent was simply to encourage people to live in a continuously learning and improving way. I was brought up short one day when a colleague said, "Who the f*** are you to tell me to be better!" Hmmm. Not my intent---AND that is how the message was interpreted by at least one person. I changed my plate.
Who am I to encourage Hank Haney, David Leadbetter, Michael Breed, and the flock of interviewers on CNN, FOX, NPR, XM, Golf Channel, ESPN, etc. to think about their delivery as much as their content--and seek to improve? Just one person, a listener, kindly given a public school education in a remote rural state (Idaho), a consumer of broadcast interviews, and one who has practiced what he proposes.
What does it take to make a good on-line/on-air presence?
1. Ask open-ended questions. When an interviewer asks a close-ended question that can be answered with "yes" or "no," they are demonstrating their lack of skill and education. Sure there are times when an interviewer wants to nail down a respondent by "forcing" them into a yes/no response. This is more common in political interviews than other places. That said, when an interviewer wants to get some perspective and human interest, a yes/no question is the kiss of death.
2. Ask sensitive questions. Asking "How are you feeling?" is one we often hear in the midst of a tragedy of one kind or another. "Your child was just killed. How are you feeling?" C'mon! Not the time and place. Have you ever been appalled by the questions asked on national television? OUR feelings at the time are annoyance, even outrage at the insensitivity. Perhaps we should let the interviewee choose how deeply and personally to respond. "Tell us, please, what happened?" Another less invasive option might be, "What's your assessment of the situation leading up to the event? What premonitions, if any, did you have?" "How will you and your family plan to grieve/mourn this event?" I realize many interviewees are dumbstruck in front of a camera, and it's not always easy to get someone to open up on camera despite the way that most humans gravitate to them. And this is where a journalist demonstrates his or her skill or lack thereof. The choice of interviewee is important. Some pre-interview conversation will help the interviewer gauge how much they will have to "lead" the respondent--or whether they should seek someone else to reflect the situation.
3. Be clear and eliminate "meaningless fillers." Two of the world's foremost experts on the golf swing are Hank Haney and David Leadbetter. As an avid golfer, I've read their books. So, I was eager to hear their exchange on national radio (XM golf channel) recently. After five minutes, the language was so tortuous, so painful to listen to, I had to turn it off. It seemed they both had attended the same broadcasting seminar--and came out with identical styles. The number of a) affected stammering (I, I, I, etc.), b) "I mean"s, c) "Look!"s and d) "You knows" completely overwhelmed whatever content they were trying to convey. I greatly respect these men--and their radio speaking style was nearly unintelligible. One day later, I listened to an interview of Adam Scott, a globally famous player. In contrast, his language was clear, concise, almost completely devoid of fillers (ZERO uh's, um's, look's, I mean's, and stammering). This was sooo refreshing by comparison. Now, Scott is not a professional broadcaster (although he is doing some), and one could argue that Haney and Leadbetter are--or are trying to be. You might say, lighten up, Jim! Okay. I stuttered so badly in high school, I couldn't get two words out back to back. I'm told it was torture listening to me in church or conversation. I worked on it. And made huge changes. Maybe that's why this bugs me. If Haney and Leadbetter would work on this the way they ask aspiring golfers to work on drills to improve their golf swings, they could improve their broadcast presence by leaps and bounds. I hope they will, because they have so much to offer.
4. Don't over-contextualize or interrupt. Many interviewers try to set the context of the interview so much that they leave little time for the respondent to speak. Most of us like to hear ourselves talk and express our views. The role of an interviewer, however, is to draw out the views of the subject. On TV and radio, one may need to give one sentence of context--but a whole paragraph is often distracting--and confusing to the subject: "Which if any question in there did he/she want me to comment on?" The interviewer in the Adam Scott interview is a high energy individual and could hardly contain himself from interrupting and offering his point of view. If interviewers remember than the public wants to hear from their subjects, not the interviewers, and can frame clear and concise open-ended questions, their interviews will have much more impact.
5. Delivery style matters as much as content. The point here is that those in the public eye have a responsibility to be professional, not only in their content, but also in their delivery. Particularly those who are conducting the interviews, the onus is on continuous skill development so that interview #1,000 is much better than interview #10 was. We listeners, trained and lay alike, can and will choose whether to continue listening. We vote with our choices. "Stay with us" is not enough.
6. Pay attention to your grammar. "They gave Thom and I a good interview." No, no, no. One of the simplest English grammar principles is the difference between nominative and objective cases. Journalists should know that difference. "They gave I a good interview?" Nope. Objective case there. There are millions of people in the world trying to learn English by listening to radio and TV and watching movies. Please be good examples.
I once had a license plate that read "Be BETR." My intent was simply to encourage people to live in a continuously learning and improving way. I was brought up short one day when a colleague said, "Who the f*** are you to tell me to be better!" Hmmm. Not my intent---AND that is how the message was interpreted by at least one person. I changed my plate.
Who am I to encourage Hank Haney, David Leadbetter, Michael Breed, and the flock of interviewers on CNN, FOX, NPR, XM, Golf Channel, ESPN, etc. to think about their delivery as much as their content--and seek to improve? Just one person, a listener, kindly given a public school education in a remote rural state (Idaho), a consumer of broadcast interviews, and one who has practiced what he proposes.
