The Media Interview

A fascinating new trend in interviewing has emerged during the course of the US presidential primaries: the live-to-web editorial board interview. Sitting around the table with editors of a media outlet is a long-standing tradition, but the idea of streaming it live over the internet adds some interesting new dimensions.

Take the editorial board meeting between Hillary Clinton and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on May 23, 2008. The ensuing controversy over Clinton’s reference to the Robert Kennedy assassination came, not from the Argus Leader, but from the NY Post, which was monitoring the interview via the web and picked up on the line.

Argus-Leader Executive Editor Russell Beck put it this way:

…we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.'’

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.'’

Just as the posting of interview transcripts on the internet after the fact has been revolutionizing the ability for the public and other journalists to assess context or find other stories, the idea of live-streaming interviews makes that possible in real time. It also opens up more possibilities for misinterpretation and misuse of statements - it’s no longer the small group of people in the editorial board meeting who can use what you say.

So watching what you say becomes even more important these days.

English football manager Avram Grant gave a bizarre press conference after his Chelsea team’s win over Everton on April 17 - so bizarre that The Independent ran an almost complete transcript. I say ‘almost’ because it doesn’t give a full sense of the pauses and silences. Anyway, here’s part of the one-word wonder at work, not helped much by the reporters asking questions that lend themselves to one-word answers:

A deserved win Avram?

Yes

What particularly pleased you about the performance?

I’m pleased.

What in particular pleased you?

After an eight second delay: I don’t know.

Is it a relief to win here?

Yes.

You seem lost for words by the performance. Are you more satisfied with the performance or the victory?

Both.

You seem distracted. Do you have a problem?

No problem.

Is there an issue?

No. I’m ok. I have nothing to say.

Sometime later, the reporters walk right into one of the best cagey responses I’ve seen:

Is it [the one-word answers] a protest against newspapers?

No. Why?

Why else would you come in and refuse to answer our questions?

I answer every question.

For background and some commentary on the press conference, read this Independent article, which also includes a mini-history of recent bizarre press conferences in English football.

Heard a great story the other day while waiting in the green room at a TV station. Author Sue Johnson (Hold Me Tight) was saying how she once had a 5 minute TV appearance reduced to only 3 minutes because they couldn’t get a tiger off the set from the previous interview.

Answer: carry on as if they did and have your own people pose questions to you.

That’s what FEMA did back on October 23rd. Having informed the media of a briefing on the California wildfires 15 minutes before it was to start, it’s not surprising that no one turned up.

A couple of reporters listened in on the 800 number (listen only - no questions). One of them, a Washington Post reporter, began to notice that the questions apparently being posed by reporters to Deputy Administrator Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson were not very probing. Turned out, it was FEMA staff members calling out the questions as if they were reporters.

Here’s what it looked like, as carried live by Fox News:

FEMA’s deputy director of public affairs defended the botched news conference by saying that the questions were ones that reporters had been asking earlier in the day and that Johnson did not know what he was going to be asked. So that’s ok then… hmmmm.

The two most obvious courses of action would have been to reschedule the briefing or read a statement. To pretend that the media is asking questions is to give the impression that some scrutiny is going on.

The way NPR’s Bryant Park Project tells it, the Icelandic band Sigur Ros was at fault for what it calls “possibly the worst interview in the history of electronic media”.

Seriously.

It was that bad.

We’re not sure if they were tired, or if it was a language thing, or what… but wow.

Whereas most shows would just bury an interview like that, we’ve decided to actually show it to you. It certainly made us laugh. We hope you’ll enjoy it too.

And to repeat, we love this band. We are going to be the first people to buy their new album “Hvarf / Heima” when it comes out this November. And the concert documentary is beautiful — please go see it if it comes to your town.

Just never invite them on your radio show.

It certainly was awkward - the total number of words spoken wasn’t much more than the 4 musicians in the studio. Watch the video of the interview and see what you think.

While many commenters agreed with the show hosts about the band’s poor performance, others picked up on the fact that the interviewer - Luke Burbank - wasn’t much better:

ease up on the band. the interviewer was terrible. there is no continuity in the questions, and there is little attempt at being personable to the band which creates an awkward atmosphere. how else could you respond?

Sent by ros | 3:16 AM ET | 10-11-2007

Yes, terrible. But I think the main problem was the interviewer who asked questions leading nowhere…

“How dou you create music, do you just sit down and play?” - “……..u, yes”.

“What is Hopelandic, does it mean anything, is it Icelandic?” - “…….u, no, it’s just gibberish”.

And up to three questions at a time:
“Do you do this, or that and then just that?” - “……uuu, B”.

You can’t really look good in an interview like this unless you’re an interview- and conversational whizard

Sent by Hildur | 5:32 AM ET | 10-11-2007

But I’ll leave the last word to this commenter:

hahaha.. have you guys never seen a interview with Sigur R??s before???

This is normal.. this is how they are.. and thats why we love them….

Sent by Vuni | 5:38 AM ET | 10-11-2007

What happened in Arizona stayed in Arizona… until the internet came along. The chances of a local mistake going national or international just grow and grow.

Arizona State quarterback Rudy Carpenter apologized Monday for swearing during a live radio interview after the Sun Devils’ victory over Oregon State…

The interview was posted on YouTube, and as of Monday afternoon the audio clip had been played more than 1,100 times.

Thanks to CSTV for posting this AP story of September 24, 2007.