Freelance writer J. Maureen Henderson lays out some of that strategic thinking in a post at Forbes, “On Becoming Barbara Walters.”

If done right, interviewing is actually a neat little game – you use all of your investigative and interpersonal talents (asking, listening, analyzing) to engage another person in conversation, mine that interaction for useful information and then use that information to create or augment a compelling story. You need to be perceptive, inquisitive, adaptable and more than a little bit crafty.

For Henderson, the first step is knowing the story you want to tell. Absolutely right. Like a good story, a good interview should have a focus. That doesn’t mean you’ve outlined your script in advance and you’re just looking for a sound bite to plug in. (I’ve seen reporters who worked that way, believe it or not, and while they never missed deadline their stories were always pedestrian at best.)

An interview is a conversation with a purpose and the reporter is (or should be) in the driver’s seat. You need to be open to unexpected detours, but you also need a road map to remember where you’re going. You should know what questions you plan to ask and why you’re asking them. What is the point of talking to this person, anyway? If you don’t know, you’re probably wasting their time and yours.

Henderson also advises interviewers to “leave yourself out of it.”

There’s a fine line between building a rapport and comfort level that gets you the juiciest candid quotes and being obsequious and fawning in your attempt to bond with your subject. Recognize the line and stay on the professional side of it.

I agree, up to a point. Not that I’m in favor of fawning or unprofessional conduct, of course. But you want to come off as a real person, not a robot, especially if you’re interviewing “ordinary” people who need to be put at ease. Under those circumstances, it’s OK to open up a bit to the person you’re interviewing, as long as you remember there’s only one star in an interview and it’s not you.

Using Facebook for a TV investigation: Proof that social media are great reporting tools.

Digital note-taking tools: A review of free and low-cost software to help you keep track of information.

How to learn social media skills at mid-career: A three-point plan for getting up to speed on social media.

Is there any hope for quality in local TV news?: Review of a documentary that paints a gloomy picture.

Why journalists should learn to love data: Tips and tools for working with data that can lead you to great stories.

Do-it-yourself interactive graphics: How to use ManyEyes.

Recommended journalism textbooks: Originally posted in 2008, an updated list leading off with the second edition of Advancing the Story.

Secrets of the TV stations of the year: The shared newsroom culture and personal connections behind the three 2011 winners.

How to interview children: A tip sheet on how to talk to kids on camera.

Resolve to be a more enterprising reporter: What is takes to turn better stories (posted on New Year’s Eve 2010).

What did I learn by looking back at this list? It seems pretty obvious that tips and how-to posts are most popular with NewsLab regulars, so one of my goals for this year is to bring you more of what you’re looking for. If you have specific requests, please let me know.

In the meantime, here’s to a terrific 2012.

Every reporter eventually runs into a story so important that it’s worth getting the information on a confidential basis. But you’d better understand your news organization’s position on unnamed sources before you make any promises.

Many newsrooms require a supervisor’s approval before confidentiality can be ensured. That usually means the boss will need to know the source’s identity, and the source should be aware of that before making any deals. But how many others in your news organization will be told the name of your source? And how far will your bosses go to support a confidentiality agreement? Will they protect you from having to turn over notebooks or raw tape? Will they pay for your legal defense if you’re found in contempt for not disclosing the identity of a source?

At a recent IRE workshop, Josh Meyer of the Medill National Security Zone emphasized the importance of establishing ground rules up front that apply to both journalists and their sources. “Let them know that if you find at any point that they have lied to you or misrepresented the facts, the deal may be off,” he said.

Lawyer Bert Bruser, counsel to the Toronto Star, advised journalists to avoid leaving any paper trail that could identify a source. Don’t write the name in your notes, he said, don’t mention it in email, and get rid of any documents with the source’s name on them.

Better yet, don’t quote or refer to unnamed sources in your stories. Instead, “use anonymous sources to point you toward key documents, data or story ideas,” panelists said.

One other obvious piece of advice: make sure you and your source agree on what you mean by the words you use when discussing ground rules. I’m always taken aback by the number of journalists and officials who think “background” means “off the record” and vice versa. This glossary of interviewing terms covers the most common ground rules.

Be aware, too, of the perception by some PR professionals that there really is no such thing as “off the record” and who may be counseling the people they advise not to provide any information on that basis.

So says Laurie Oakes, political editor of Australia’s Nine Network, in a media lecture that’s full of interesting stuff. His comment struck me, in part, because I’d just finished reading a Q-and-A in SPJ’s Quill Magazine with ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger, winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for his series on “The Wall Street Money Machine.” Eisinger was asked how he overcomes roadblocks when people don’t want to talk to him.

I’m very clear and up front with people, and I lay out what I’m working on very clearly to them. I have an excess of disclosure and explanation of what I’m doing with them to reassure them that I’m serious and careful. And I think that persuades people. I think that they have a bad idea of what journalists are up to, and if you emphasize and then show them that you are extremely careful and you want to be fair and accurate, I think that builds trust with them even if they know that you’ve got evidence of things that don’t make them look good.

Sneaky, Eisinger is not. But is it ever OK for a journalist to be sneaky? It probably depends on what you think that term means. As far as Oakes is concerned, he says he was being sneaky when he asked a question of a source that appeared to be based on hard information but was really just conjecture about a pending appointment.

“When will Gair take up his diplomatic post?” Shocked silence at the other end of the line. Then: “How did you know about that?” Bingo. Sure it was subterfuge, but subterfuge in the public interest.

That doesn’t strike me as underhanded. He’d identified himself as a journalist and was just fishing for information. So if that’s the definition of sneaky, I guess I’m for it. How about you?

Elected officials often don’t like the way they’re covered but they usually put up with it. After all, they’re on the public payroll and media coverage goes with the territory. But last week, in a 24-hour period, politicians on both coasts had it out with television journalists who cover them.

In Seattle, KOMO reports that the mayor’s office sent an email to the local television stations telling them not to crowd around the mayor at press events or try to reach him at home.

The email was sent shortly after a group of reporters and photographers approached McGinn at a Friday morning event to ask him about his appointment of a bicycle club leader to fill a $95,000-per-year transportation policy post. That impromptu question-and-answer session came the morning after a KOMO News reporter and photographer went to McGinn’s house at 9:05 p.m. to see if he was available to talk about the surprise appointment.

The email included this screenshot:

That’s helpful, right? My guess is that most people who saw the email had a good laugh and went back to work. But what happened in Georgia wasn’t so funny.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the governor’s press office was angry about a story by WAGA’s I-Team that a fundraising firm hired by the governor was connected to his daughter-in-law. So the next day, state troopers blocked a WAGA crew from covering a public bill signing.

Both the mayor and the governor may have legitimate complaints with their local stations, but their reactions seem out of line, don’t they?

What I didn’t know until now is that Twain was also an expert on being interviewed and he didn’t much like it.

In an unpublished, unfinished essay, Concerning the Interview, now available online for the first time, Twain compares the attitude of interviewers to that of a cyclone “which comes with the gracious purpose of cooling off a sweltering village, and is not aware, afterward, that it has done that village anything but a favor.”

Twain complains that interviewers can’t tell the difference between a good quote and worthless drivel:

He doesn’t know when you are delivering metal from when you are shoveling out slag, he can’t tell dirt from ducats; it’s all one to him, he puts in everything you say; then he sees, himself, that it is but green stuff and wasn’t worth saying, so he tries to mend it by putting in something of his own which he thinks is ripe, but in fact is rotten. True, he means well, but so does the cyclone.

And that’s not all. Twain says interviewers never stick to any one subject long enough to learn much of interest. “Generally, you have got out just enough of your statement to damage you; you never get to the place where you meant to explain and justify your position.” The interview, says Twain, is not a happy invention. In his view, “It is perhaps the poorest of all ways of getting at what is in a man.”

Sounds like Mark Twain was never interviewed by a journalist who was any good at it.  A gifted interviewer can learn all sorts of things the subject may not even have wanted to divulge. And it’s worth remembering that Twain’s essay was written around 1890, when yellow journalism was on the rise. Still, it’s a treat–and a little humbling–to read this American icon’s take on one of the central tasks of our craft.

Want to hear more about Twain’s essay? Here’s NPR’s Scott Simon, discussing the art and aggravation of the interview with the writer Calvin Trillin, another humorist from Missouri. Enjoy!

Maybe. Including “vox pops” or person-on-the-street sound bites or quotes won’t automatically make a story stronger. Often, they’re just window dressing. I can’t count the number of times I was sent out to get citizens’ reactions to some development or other and most of the people I talked to had no idea what I was asking about.

Does that mean the public is stupid or woefully uninformed? Not necessarily. At least half the problem with this kind of reporting is that we ask the wrong people the wrong questions.

Choose the right place

Where do you go to find people for reaction stories? A public place near the office with lots of people, right? It probably shouldn’t be a surprise that few shoppers or commuters have informed  opinions about every issue you could possibly bring up.

When you’re working on a reaction story, you’ll have better luck getting usable sound or quotes if you find people who actually care about the topic. That means you have to go to a place where they’re likely to gather. Need parents for an education story? Try a school parking lot or a soccer field. A health study? Ask people going and coming from a free clinic instead of a supermarket. It takes more effort, obviously, but the payoff is usually worth it.

Ask the right questions

Finding the right people is only half the solution, though. You need to ask questions differently than you would when talking to officials or other people who are accustomed to being interviewed. Don’t start with an agenda and ask them to fill in the blanks. It’s almost never productive to ask what people think of a pending proposal to…whatever.

Ask open-ended questions about the topic in general to learn what people are really concerned about and what they think should be done. If they don’t tell you what you expect to hear, maybe that’s your story.

Stories, not anecdotes

“Real people” often show up at the top of stories and never appear again. You know the drill: “Joe Smith has been looking for work for seven months, since he was laid off from his job at the manufacturing plant. He’s not alone….”

Anecdotal leads turn people into props or window dressing. If you really want to tell a character-driven story, the story has to be in large part about the character. And that doesn’t just mean bringing him or her back at the end. You know that drill too: “For Joe Smith, the bad news on unemployment means he’ll have to keep looking.”

Stories are stronger when characters get more than a hello and goodbye. An anecdote may be a good way to hook the audience but central characters will keep them reading or watching all the way to the end.

Sue Carter and Bonnie Bucqueroux of the Victims and the Media Program at Michigan State University say it’s not a bad idea to open the conversation with, “I’m sorry for your loss,” or “I’m sorry for what happened to you.”  ”Even if those remarks sound canned to you, chances are that the victims will appreciate hearing them,” they write.

In any case, you’re better off sticking with a rehearsed comment than blurting out something that may be hurtful. Hard to believe, but one young reporter tried to establish some empathy by telling a mother who had lost a child that she knew how the woman felt because her dog had died.

Here are a few tips on how to handle tough interviews in the aftermath of a crime, accident or disaster:

• Make sure the family has been notified. Check and double check with officials before making your approach. Mistakes do happen. Decide what you will do and say if you become the inadvertent bearer of bad news.

• Have a plan. Know beforehand what you are going to say when you approach a survivor or relative. Decide precisely how you will phrase your request and practice it ahead of time.

• Leave your equipment behind. Announce who you are and what news organization you represent. Express regrets before asking of they’d be willing to talk.

• State your purpose. Explain that you are offering them an opportunity to share their memories and feelings, if they want to. Be clear about how much time you will need, whether you are live or on tape, and ask their help in choosing a location.

• Be prepared with alternatives. Offer a business card if they say they would rather talk later. Ask them if they would prefer that someone else speak for the family.

• Share control. Tell them they can choose to stop, to take a break, or to keep some remarks out of your coverage.

• Thank them for their effort. Reliving trauma takes a toll. Tell victims how much you appreciate their willingness to share their stories.

For more suggestions, see Interviewing Victims–Tips and Techniques.

Listen closely. How often are the voices in those stories those of bureaucrats, officials, reporters, sometimes parents, rarely kids?

NewsLab offers the following suggestions for including the voices of children in your stories.

Seek Children Out

• Look for children who are directly involved in the issue you are covering. Talk to them in their own environment, where they are most comfortable.
• Include children in everyday stories, not just stories “about” children’s issues. Consider what perspective they might offer. In an election year, for instance, cover an elementary school student government election, explaining what motivates the candidates and voters. Are their parents and teachers that engaged? Why not?
• Look down and look behind you when covering breaking news. Children often provide a frank and fresh assessment of what’s happening, not to mention great natural sound.
• Establish a children’s advisory group to respond to what they see on the air and to suggest stories for coverage. You might even let them report a story or two themselves.

Find Their Level

• Spend time ahead of time letting children get used to your presence. Hang around, put the camera down. Keep your notebook and tape recorder in your bag. [Or let the child play with the mic and record themselves, one commenter suggests, to make them more comfortable.]
• Listen. Listen more than you talk. Ask fewer questions than you might of an adult. Let the child fill the silence.
• Crouch or kneel when talking to little kids. Don’t stand above them and put a stick mic in their faces.
• Give more of yourself than you would in an ordinary interview. Answer their questions.
• Avoid asking kids their opinions about issues and policies, even those that affect them directly. Ask instead about their own personal experiences. For instance, have kids describe what they eat for lunch at school, rather than asking what they think about the new school lunch program.

Write to Sound

• Match your writing style to the children’s voices. If your story includes a lot of sound from young children, keep your own language simple and your sentences short. Your track should not become a speedbump, slowing the story down.
• Use more sound than you might ordinarily, to help your audience get to know the child and help them see why they should care about what he or she says.
• Write less. Take your own voice out of the story to give more weight to the children’s voices.

Tread Gently

• Be clear about who you are and what you will do with what they say. Tell them more than once, to be sure they understand.
• Get permission from a parent or guardian before talking to the child. Leave a card so they can contact you later if they have any questions.
• Consider what harm you might cause just by talking to the child, even if you don’t air the interview.

]]> http://www.newslab.org/2009/12/17/how-to-interview-children/feed/ 3 http://www.newslab.org/2009/12/10/how-to-prepare-for-interviews/ http://www.newslab.org/2009/12/10/how-to-prepare-for-interviews/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:26:22 +0000 Deborah Potter http://www.newslab.org/?p=1803 What you get out of an interview is directly related to what you put into it. Even if you’re in a rush, which most of us are these days, you owe it to yourself, your subject and most importantly your audience to spent some time preparing for interviews.

Do your homework

• Research the person. Ask others about the person, see what has been written about them already. If it’s a famous person, you don’t want to ask a question that the person has answered hundreds of times unless you can ask it in a very different way. Use the Internet, clipping files, talk to other journalists who have interviewed that person.
• Research the subject. You need to know what you are talking about. This establishes your credibility from the start. Check clip files, the Internet, colleagues. The more you know, the better the questions and the better the answers, the better the story. But don’t assume that because something has been published it must be true. Use your research as background, not as fact.

Know your purpose

• Know what you hope to accomplish in each interview. Do you need factual information or the person’s reactions to a situation, or are you looking for a deeper understanding of the person? This will guide you in planning and preparing questions.
• Picture the best possible outcome for each interview. Then ask yourself what problems may arise and how you will get over them? For example, know what you will do if the person wants to go off the record. Check this glossary of terms for useful definitions of agreements between sources and reporters.

Plan your questions

• Decide where you want to start and how you’re likely to end. The first question will set the tone so you may want to prepare an “ice-breaker.” You might end with an open-ended question to give the subject a chance to raise something you didn’t ask, something along the lines of “Is there anything else I should know?”
• If you have difficult or confrontational questions to ask, you might want to save them for the last third of the interview. But if your time is extremely limited, you may want to cut to the chase.
• Make a few notes of the issues you want to ask about. You don’t have to write down questions and read them verbatim, but do have a cheat sheet handy so you can make sure you haven’t left out something important.