I go where it hurts

WW: Roger Schawinski, you recently described Oprah Winfrey as a "tame and empathetic" interviewer. What kind of interviewer are you yourself?
Roger Schawinski: I am the complete opposite: a persistent, hard investigating and sometimes rebellious interviewer.
 
What does "rebellious" mean?
I make sure that my guests don't just tell me what they want to. They shouldn't just present their best side. I wait for opportunities to get stuck in. If something doesn't work out, I follow up. I don't reel off a list of questions, but try to create a real conversation - and I listen carefully.
 
You are often criticized for not letting your guests finish speaking. Not only from the audience council.
You see, I am an irritant for many journalists. For years. Maybe that was the case at the beginning with making excuses. I think that's largely gone now.
 
You could certainly find examples from current programs...
My guests all get to speak at length. There is no other program on Swiss television in which a single guest is given a platform for half an hour.
 
You have a confrontational interview style. Shouldn't an interviewer adapt more to the guest?
I definitely do that. I assess in advance whether I should "go all in" with someone or whether I should take things slowly.
 
But you can't get rid of your style, can you?
No, I don't want that at all. I talk differently to Melanie Winiger than I do to Christoph Mörgeli. But what I always do: I get involved myself. I confront my guests with counter-questions and give my opinion. The duel character is what makes the show interesting. The viewer always has to take a stand: Which side am I on? Where are my sympathies? Who has the better arguments?
 
The conversations are fast and often remain on the surface.
I reject the accusation of superficiality. It's quick, sometimes perhaps so quick that you stay a little too short on one point. But I go where it hurts, where I get close to a personality. My show doesn't just ripple along. It's extremely well researched. Nobody is fooling us.
 
With Melanie Winiger, it was about the color of her exes' hair. What did you want to find out?
I went into it because Winiger once said on television that she liked men with black hair and dark eyes. Her men were just the opposite.
 
That was an old insert. From 1997.
But it shows how Winiger works.
 
How?
I wanted to show that: What Winiger says in the media is partly hot air. A day later, the opposite is true. I think it was a great interview. The feedback shows me that.
 
Another common criticism is that you come across as biased. As if you have already made up your mind about the guest.
Of course, I have formed an opinion of my guests in the course of my research. But I give them the chance to surprise me.
 
When did this last happen?
That happens in almost every show. Alexander Tschäppät, for example, when he said he was afraid to come on my show. I was surprised that someone like Tschäppät, who is so extroverted, was at the same time afraid to face a critical discussion.
 
When your show started in summer 2011, you announced that you wanted to interview members of the Federal Council. So far, none of them have been on "Schawinski"...
That's because Federal Councillors apparently only want to go to places where they don't have to reveal anything personal. My program is probably the wrong one.
 
The Federal Councillors have turned you down?
Yes, I have made enquiries and received rejections. I take note of that, but I regret it. As representatives of the people, Federal Councillors should not just give antiseptic interviews that are gutted by their press people. My show is "live on tape", so there's nothing left to edit and iron out. That's why the media advisors apparently advise their federal councillors not to come on my show. In my opinion, that's a sign that they don't trust them very much.
 
It's not just Federal Councillors who don't want to be on your show.
Yes, many business leaders are just as reluctant to enter an environment that is not fully controlled.
 
Why would anyone want to go on "Schawinski"?
A guest who does well with me receives hero status. This is proven by a lot of enthusiastic feedback. Going on a show where you get the "Schmuus" from the interviewer is no good. Nobody takes it seriously. A good answer to a critical question is worth ten times more than a blah-blah answer to a blah-blah question. But the media consultants, who fear for their jobs, usually see it differently.
 
Is the difficulty of finding guests the reason why you invite some people several times?
I find this question strange. David Letterman always has exciting guests. It's the same in the arena. Peter Maffay has been on Gottschalk fifteen times. Firstly, the number of interesting guests is finite - and not just in Switzerland. And secondly, the situation is developing. Take Philipp Müller, for example. I interviewed him once before he became FDP president. A year later, it's a different story.
 
They could certainly cover a broader spectrum.
I found it exciting to interview Christoph Mörgeli for the third time in the turbulent times surrounding his job. I want the most interesting guest at all times.
 
Are SVP representatives the most interesting guests?
No. I have guests from all parties.
 
Toni Brunner was with you twice, Christoph Mörgeli three times.
The SVP is effectively the opposition party. It is the party that provokes the most. For this reason, its most important representatives are exciting.
 
The SVP has a high quota.
Of course! Of course, I want to make a show that finds viewers. But not only that. Relevance is important to me. I certainly didn't invite the forensic psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok or the pediatrician Remo Largo because of the ratings, but because I'm interested in the topics and people.
 
They were always fixated on ratings. Those of "Schawinski " fluctuate between 13 and 34 percent depending on the guest. The average market share in 2012 was 16.4 percent. How satisfied are you with that?
The quota depends on various things. Above all on the guest. But also on how the supporting program runs. Both "Eco" and "10vor10" have strongly fluctuating ratings. What's more, it's not easy to attract viewers to a program that deals with serious topics so late at night. I'm very pleased with the ratings - and even more pleased with the great response.
 
Would you prefer a different slot?
Not much else is possible at this time. I don't want a slot at 8.15 p.m. or directly after "10vor10". Then I would have to make a slightly different program and look more at ratings. What I do criticize, however, is that for a few months now I've only been getting a trailer for every fifth show.
 
SRF 1 always announces who will be your guest.
But not with a trailer that can be used multiple times. But that would be essential for a show with just one guest. Viewers need to know who my guest is so that they stay up until 11 pm.
 
To what extent does your producer have a say in the selection of guests?
Everyone can have their say, not just my producer. I'm always grateful for suggestions, because it's hard work to find good guests. But the decision is up to me.
 
Do you watch your program yourself?
Of course - and always live. In my opinion, you can only judge a show if you watch it live, in the same context as every viewer. The show is usually recorded on Monday at around 6 pm. Then I go home, eat something and wait nervously for the broadcast. Like a normal viewer, I then sit in front of the TV with the remote control in my hand and think about when I would switch over. Where does it get boring? It's extremely exciting every time. Afterwards, I'm usually so excited that I can't sleep for another two or three hours.
 
What moves you when you watch your program?
Many things. I ask myself: where could something have been changed? Why did I leave this question out? As a viewer, my experience of the show is sometimes completely different from what I experienced in the studio. They are two completely different things. Tschäppät, for example, was a grateful guest. He played along well. And even when I watched the show, I found it very entertaining. With Urbaniok, on the other hand, I thought: That was a bit heavy fare for this late hour.
 
Who do you discuss the program with?
With my producer and with my colleagues at Radio 1. I also often get feedback from editor-in-chief Diego Yanez. Now and again from my wife when she watches the show. She can't always do that, of course, because I do so many shows a week. I also do the "Doppelpunkt" on Radio 1, "Roger gegen Roger", the morning column, and also a column in the SonntagsZeitung. It would almost be a full-time job to keep track of everything.
 
Is your wife a harsh critic?
Yes, very much.
 
What has she already criticized?
Sometimes she thinks I'm too hard up. Then she always tells me to calm down a bit.
 
Do you sometimes think to yourself: You've gone too far now?
Yes, here and there I think: That's a cheeky guy, that interviewer.
 
I don't buy that. You like yourself in this role.
Sometimes I really think: Oops. But my show is real, 1:1. A lot of things on television are non-binding. That's hardly the case in other programs. In "Arena", for example, some people stand at the front and ten others further back. Every participant knows: you say something, then others come on and you have to wait ten minutes until it's your turn again. It's a completely different conversation situation to my show.
 
Now you've got your foot back in the door at SRF. Will you soon be taking on a second show?
How did you come up with such an idea?
 
A media-political format perhaps?
No. I am very interested in media - and I write about it. But no more programs, please. On the other hand, I want to do "Schawinski" for a long time to come. Continuity is crucial for a show like this. With Harald Schmidt, who had his late-night show four times a week on Sat. 1, it took four years for the show to really establish itself. You should never forget that.

Interview: Isabel Imper