In the confessional of postmodernism
Noted: How can interviews be turned into a substantial meal rather than a mindless stew? Our columnist recommends the “strategy of cluelessness” to his colleagues.
Column How do you turn interviews into a hearty meal rather than a mindless stew? Our columnist recommends the strategy of cluelessness to his colleagues.Would you talk to a complete stranger from the press, Mbwana? They would. God knows why: the press has the status of a modern confessional chair with a built-in loudspeaker. Strangely enough, hardly anyone puts down the phone. With a little courage, whoever pretends to be a reporter can steal an hour of time from whoever. (With the exception of the big CEOs, who only say nothing to hand-picked journalists). It is a wonder that private telephone interviews with politicians, professors and actors have not yet become a popular sport, resulting in an avalanche of gossip rolling through the media. Which is a good thing in itself - the world would be a nicer place if it were a big coffee house where people worked less and chatted more. As long as it is intelligent chatter.
So how do you do a smart interview? Unfortunately, the answer is the same to the question: How do you have good sex? There is no one who is bad or good in bed alone, only people who are good or bad together.
So there is no universal key here either. Authoritarian interviewers like Roger Schawinski are good at cracking local politicians, but often come across as outrageous to ordinary people, like slave masters whipping the defenceless. Friendly suck-ups like Kurt Aeschbacher, on the other hand, sink into bottomless banalities when it comes to tough topics and media professionals.
That's why the most important thing is to know your style: Are you more the inquisitor, the sneak, the co-expert, the friend, the sparring partner? The second most important thing: who is the other person? Not just in terms of substance, but also in terms of personality: can you expect a dry, cloudy, aggressive or anecdotal interlocutor?
My favorite stance - I'm more of a confused person, mbwana - is to ask the interviewee for advice. "Mr. X, I urgently need clarification about ..." Hardly anyone can resist this seemingly submissive attitude. And when you have talked long enough, you can follow up with questions such as "I still don't quite understand, now you say Y, but your colleague/the annual report/you yourself said Z ..." - and perfidiously only gradually reveal your expertise.
So far, so dubious, so me. ("Every cripple has its own way to walk", wrote Brendan Behan.) As individual as the strengths and methods of interviewers are, their worst temptation is common: to prove that they are brilliant. But it's the interview that has to be clever, not the interviewer. It is a bad mistake to try to show competence through bon mots, technical jargon and lengthy lectures. It comes across as if the host is eating the menu alone.
The simpler, the more curious a question is, the better. Naïve questions in particular, such as "Do you actually like what you do?", often produce the most interesting answers. Completely inappropriate topics are always worth a try: Tackling sportspeople about politics, politicians about philosophy, CEOs about love and friendship. The answers are then surprisingly good or bad.
If you miss the interview, Mbwana, change the battlefield. As a journalist, you have one last big trump card: don't write an interview, write a portrait. You can put everything in there - background knowledge, life story, statements from friends and foes, your commentary. And with it the message that you too are enviably interesting.
Ultimately, God only knows how you embarrassed yourself in the interview. The only thing that counts for your audience is what's on paper. That is also the reason why so many ugly people (in body and character) choose journalism: Media offers even the worst of us a second chance.
> Constantin Seibt is an editor at the weekly newspaper (WOZ).
So how do you do a smart interview? Unfortunately, the answer is the same to the question: How do you have good sex? There is no one who is bad or good in bed alone, only people who are good or bad together.
So there is no universal key here either. Authoritarian interviewers like Roger Schawinski are good at cracking local politicians, but often come across as outrageous to ordinary people, like slave masters whipping the defenceless. Friendly suck-ups like Kurt Aeschbacher, on the other hand, sink into bottomless banalities when it comes to tough topics and media professionals.
That's why the most important thing is to know your style: Are you more the inquisitor, the sneak, the co-expert, the friend, the sparring partner? The second most important thing: who is the other person? Not just in terms of substance, but also in terms of personality: can you expect a dry, cloudy, aggressive or anecdotal interlocutor?
My favorite stance - I'm more of a confused person, mbwana - is to ask the interviewee for advice. "Mr. X, I urgently need clarification about ..." Hardly anyone can resist this seemingly submissive attitude. And when you have talked long enough, you can follow up with questions such as "I still don't quite understand, now you say Y, but your colleague/the annual report/you yourself said Z ..." - and perfidiously only gradually reveal your expertise.
So far, so dubious, so me. ("Every cripple has its own way to walk", wrote Brendan Behan.) As individual as the strengths and methods of interviewers are, their worst temptation is common: to prove that they are brilliant. But it's the interview that has to be clever, not the interviewer. It is a bad mistake to try to show competence through bon mots, technical jargon and lengthy lectures. It comes across as if the host is eating the menu alone.
The simpler, the more curious a question is, the better. Naïve questions in particular, such as "Do you actually like what you do?", often produce the most interesting answers. Completely inappropriate topics are always worth a try: Tackling sportspeople about politics, politicians about philosophy, CEOs about love and friendship. The answers are then surprisingly good or bad.
If you miss the interview, Mbwana, change the battlefield. As a journalist, you have one last big trump card: don't write an interview, write a portrait. You can put everything in there - background knowledge, life story, statements from friends and foes, your commentary. And with it the message that you too are enviably interesting.
Ultimately, God only knows how you embarrassed yourself in the interview. The only thing that counts for your audience is what's on paper. That is also the reason why so many ugly people (in body and character) choose journalism: Media offers even the worst of us a second chance.
> Constantin Seibt is an editor at the weekly newspaper (WOZ).
