What Would You Ask Instead?
Imagine this interview. Here are three questions I heard a reporter ask in a TV interview.
Instead of jotting down the vivid stories the actor graciously offered
for each incompetent question, I'll pretend to answer them below, as
asked.
Imagine another interview. So, let me relate an interview I recently witnessed on TV between an incompetent reporter and a not-so media savvy interview subject:
We Need Fewer Badgers. I'm glad the interview subject stood up for himself. It was refreshing and honest. However, the journalist seemed glibly oblivious to the notion that she had done anything inappropriate. The interview subject bristled at the reporter's obvious bait, and he didn't take it. The journalist looked increasingly annoyed with the interview subject. She shamelessly rolled her eyes at the man and gave a knowing glance to the camera. She seemed to indicate it was her subject's job to say what she wanted him to say, and he was a belligerent dope for not playing the media game. She seemed to forget that not all of her subjects will answer questions the way she intends! Not everyone has undergone media relations coaching!
Too
many journalists don't seem to be in the business of getting to the
truth of a story. They're interested drumming up sensation. They're
asking leading questions -- laying bait for a sound bite.
And too many times, they get away with it. Why?
Reporter: Did you enjoy working with [this director]?Actor: Yes. Reporter: [This director] has a reputation for being a practical jokester. Did he play any jokes on the set?
Actor: Yes.Reporter: Can you tell me what it was like to work with him?Actor: Yes.
Asked...and answered. I can only dream of this truthful interview-answer scenario! It
would be lovely if it would really happen. If more interview subjects
"Answered the Question as Asked", it could lead to higher truths and
more interesting stories. It would force reporters to re-visit asking
such stupid questions.Of course, those
who rely on good media relations -- corporate spokespeople, athletes,
politicians, entertainers -- will not antagonize a "reporter" by
pointing out that his or her questions are leading or incompetent.
Instead, a spokesperson will often happily ignore badly framed questions and
tell a story prepared in advance. They've come to rely on journalistic incompetence, you see.Interview
subjects are often more savvy than journalists. A smart interview
subject recognizes a badly framed question, and uses it to further an
agenda. You'll never hear someone trained in media relations scream, "Where the devil did you learn to ask such stupid questions? Since when are leading questions considered remotely competent?"
Imagine another interview. So, let me relate an interview I recently witnessed on TV between an incompetent reporter and a not-so media savvy interview subject:
Reporter: Do you feel the uneasy emotional undercurrents in this town caused by massive [company] lay-offs?
Subject: "Not really. I'm sorry for some of my neighbors who lost their jobs, but they're good people, and they'll do fine.Reporter: "Don't you feel sad or victimized by what's happening in your town?"
Subject: "No. it's just a fact of life. We'll rebound."Reporter: "Most people I know are very concerned. Can you tell our viewers why you aren't you more outraged?"
Subject (irritated): "Well, I tell you. You're starting to make me mad by telling me how I should feel!"Reporter: "I'm not telling you anything, sir. I'm simply asking you how you feel."
Subject:
"No,
you never asked me how I felt. You asked me three times if I was mad or sad. I keep telling you over and over how I feel. I don't know where
all this "outraged" business is coming from..."
(The above exchange
isn't 100% accurate. It was something I witnessed while flipping channels on
TV. I tried to capture the gist of the volley between the clueless reporter
and her interview subject.)
Yes, the reporter's badgering was inappropriate. It was an awkward
series of leading questions. It was upsetting to watch her goad the
witness.
If it was a court of law, a lawyer would have jumped up and said, "Objection: Leading!"
We Need Fewer Badgers. I'm glad the interview subject stood up for himself. It was refreshing and honest. However, the journalist seemed glibly oblivious to the notion that she had done anything inappropriate. The interview subject bristled at the reporter's obvious bait, and he didn't take it. The journalist looked increasingly annoyed with the interview subject. She shamelessly rolled her eyes at the man and gave a knowing glance to the camera. She seemed to indicate it was her subject's job to say what she wanted him to say, and he was a belligerent dope for not playing the media game. She seemed to forget that not all of her subjects will answer questions the way she intends! Not everyone has undergone media relations coaching!
- Many people aim to please. If a reporter asks a leading question like "are you angry?" -- the subject might be willing to say "yes" -- and expound after an uncomfortable silence. After all, when an answer is embedded in the question, it's a cue that it's the "correct" answer -- even if the answer itself is a lie.
- Many reporters are ignorant.
Decades ago, many journalism schools removed math as a requirement for
graduation. Without a sound foundation in logic, many reporters rely on
intuition and emotion to help spread a story.They don't seem to know
that their questions are inappropriate.
We all lose when reporters ask sloppy, incompetent questions. Reporters stay clueless. And audiences get assaulted with
irrelevant stories, false emotions, and useless but inflammatory and exciting sound bites.
What kinds of questions would you ask instead? How can we insist on better questions?
Thanks Laura!