Conversation with Jim – Magic of Interviews
Here’s an experiment. This post is the first step in an unscripted conversation between me and you allegedly rabid fans of Pulse of the Planet. The subject is interviews – what makes them magical? Have a listen to the audio file and post your comments, so that this can be a real conversation.
Jim Metzner
June 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Interesting to hear your thoughts about the importance of recording our family members. Did you record your own family members? I seem to recall a program you did that had some old recordings of your own grandfather.
June 13th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
That would be “Poppa”, which aired on All Things Considered over ten years ago on Father’s Day, coincidentally. It was produced from the first recordings I ever made on an old Sony reel (pre-cassette) recorder when I was still in High School. Am planning to make some of these early programs available online.
Regards;
Jim
June 13th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I wish there was an oral recording or recordings of family members who are no longer with us.
June 13th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
In my experience as a reporter, the interviewer usually needs to lead the interview with a few clear, concise questions to start. Once the person who is being interviewed becomes more relaxed, usually after a few minutes, they will (and sometimes won’t) let their real opinions and ideas emerge. This is when the “magic” happens. The interviewer should allow the person to talk instead of running over what they’re saying with comments or more questions at this point.
As with any conversation, it takes chemistry to produce a really good interview. And, you never know when that will happen – which is really the really fun part.
June 13th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I’m wondering if the unexpected happens in follow-up questions – the ones you didn’t necessarily prepare, but those which come up in the course of the conversation. You’re following the line of thought your interviewee has established, and then encouraging them to take the next step. If you’re lucky, the interviewee takes you (with the help of the right follow-up question) to the brink of a new thought.
Jim
June 13th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Time and again, I’ve heard this mantra and experienced it myself! It’s often the shock of someone’s passing that nudges us to record other family members.
jim
June 14th, 2010 at 4:53 am
I remember years ago now when Bill Moyers interviewed Joe Campbell for the TV series on myth. As the interviewer, Moyers literally played dumb, asking simple questions so that Campbell could “teach.” At the time I thought (and still do) that it was too bad that they couldn’t just have had a conversation and let that magic happen that might have even surprised Campbell, but alas the whole series felt canned. To my mind an interviewer needs to be looking for interesting openings into new ideas, places where the so-called expert might also discover.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:27 am
That’s exactly right, otherwise we’re always going to hear the “rote” answer, which in the case of someone like Joseph Campbell, is still going to be compelling – but somewhat staged. “Playing dumb”can be useful – although with many of the scientists I interview, i don’t have to “play” dumb; I’m already in that state! But if an interviewer knows “too much”, he might end up having a chummy conversation with a scientist and forget that he’s there on the listeners’ behalf. As an interviewer, I’m continually asking scientists to explain terms that the rest of us don’t necessarily understand. Once the basics are covered in everyday language, you can ideally still go where the interviewee doesn’t expect to go – the new idea, the uncharted territory, the surprise question. Remember, too, that Moyers’ show was edited. Perhaps there were such moments, but they may have been cut, or re-shot. Public radio’s “Fresh Air” is also edited, but done in a way that doesn’t draw attention to itself.
June 14th, 2010 at 8:30 am
I’ve interviewed professionally and personally since I was a kid. I was so disappointed when my grandfather died that I hadn’t interviewed him when I had the chance (although I’d intended to many times). So when my grandmother became ill, I didn’t procrastinate. I sat her down for an hour-long interview about her life, her family, her joys and her regrets. I edited out my questions, so that the listener just hears my grandmother’s story, then added a bit of Frank Sinatra at the end––her favorite! “Nana” has been gone for almost 5 years now, and I’m so glad I have this recording. My other grandmother is still around, and I’ll be bugging her soon for some time behind the microphone.
June 14th, 2010 at 8:41 am
I am fortunate to have some recordings from family members who were gone before I was born. But wish our family had more. This is a good reminder to make the effort to record stories and voices.
As a listener to interviews I find the “good” moments to be when the interviewee becomes excited about the topic. I become frustrated by the interviewer who refers only to their prepared questions and lets the topic the interviewee got excited about slip by. I find this to be especially true when the point of the interview is to teach listeners something new. The interview then can feel a bit stale.
June 14th, 2010 at 8:46 am
yes, if the interviewer is on auto-pilot, the odds are the interviewee will be, too. an interview can be a real work of attention. you need to follow the line of thought and not to lose the thread, even when both you and the subject are getting excited!
Jim
June 14th, 2010 at 8:56 am
sounds like a family gem. were you able to share or publish the recording in some way? perhaps we can post an edited version of the audio on this blog, if not at our sister website, soundandstory.org
jim
June 15th, 2010 at 4:12 am
What this series of comments reveals, I think, is that many interviewers on radio and TV don’t trust their listeners enough but rather dumb down the content to the point of absurdity and boredom. I’m not talking about aiming content to the intellectuals in the audience but rather having more faith in the intelligence of so-called “average” people, who deserve to be challenged and appreciated for their innate understanding.
June 15th, 2010 at 10:23 am
I’m with Richard. I’d prefer to aim a bit higher and risk the audience having to––dare I say it––pick up a dictionary once in a while.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Well, my sister did interview my father about his difficult experiences in Germany between the wars and his adventures in escaping just before WWII. But just the same I do regret we did not do much more of this, also about the good parts of my parents’ lives.
An aspect of listening to the tape of my father and I think, in general, an inportant aspect of the question that you bring, Jim, is that interviews can occassionally bring both the interviewer and the interviewee into closer touch with their common human situation, with their common hopes, difficulties, insights. And also how little we really know about ourselves and the world. I don’t how to explain it – a kind of feeling can emerge in some exchanges that is more important than the actual facts.
Here’s an example I found about a year ago. It’s from an old video and contains part of a conversation between Richard Feynman and Sir Fred Hoyle. The subject is science but I think that they both have a kind of humility about their understanding (despite the fact that Feynman was hardly a humble type!) that comes through. I love how Feynman at one point, in midstream, changes his mind about what makes conversations with others interesting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
June 15th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
It’s partly a question of contexts. A two minute program is a very different animal than an hour long interview. Whether and how attentive the listener is will vary.
And now there are new contexts. An interview can be posted on UTube, as Peter Kahan points out. For the first time on Pulse of the Planet, we’ve included the audio of a full interview (check out my interview with Terry Hazen on our Pulse Picks: Oil spill page). So for our context at least, this would offer the best of both worlds: a program which offers what we feel are the essential elements of the story – hopefully without “dumbing it down” – and the longer interview for the listener who wants to know more. Another aspect of the question is allowing time to literally “chew” on an idea, to think it over. That’s one of the reasons many of our programs have sounds, because we want to give people a chance to absorb what’s being spoken about. If you’re driving a car listening to the radio, you don’t have the opportunity to grab a dictionary. The challenge is to touch on big ideas, but explained without jargon, in a way that a non-specialist can understand as well.
June 15th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
As a Feynman fan, you’ve definitely made me want to check out that video. What you’re suggesting, I think, is that the magic happens “between”, in the pauses when we don’t have so much of an agenda as either interviewee or interviewer. Can this moment be translated to the context of an edited program? Perhaps not. Again, it’s a question of context.
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 am
Thanks so much for this conversation! I real treasure for those of us working consistently with interviews. Listening is the key to finding the attention needed for being in place for a meaningful interview. Often, my guests are phoning in live and, since it is community radio, I am engineering as we speak. That’s all part of the context for me. In person, with eye contact, there is help – mutual support
When I edit for podcast, it is painfully apparent when I have stopped listening and gone off to address my own passions. Painful, but an important part of the learning.
When working with parents and teachers of young children in workshops, the emphasis is on family stories as an alternative to the popular culture story. Sharing current personal narratives and those of family, even from photos of those no longer alive, can act as an alternative to the popular culture story. Recording is an extension of that conversation. In my experience, the mic works as a “third person” allowing the person being interviewed to bring out parts of themselves they haven’t usually shown to the person interviewing. This can happen with just leaving someone (for instance, a teenager) with a mic and asking them to speak about something that is on their minds or is in the current stream of concern in the family or community. Again, thanks.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Your thoughtful response is much appreciated. When you edit for your podcast, you mean you can tell, listening back to the interview, when your attention had wandered during the interview, right? I’ve had that experience as well, listening back to recordings, and it is indeed painful and instructive! I’m wondering if there’s a moment that comes to mind for you where a moment of listening drew forth an unexpected story which seemed to surprise the speaker as much as you?
jim
July 6th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I’m surprised in various ways in interviews. Here are a couple:
One is when I think I know what the guest’s view is on something. For instance, I assumed that Dr. Mike Brody, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who works with pediatricians in matters about media, would be delighted that the APA was considering recognizing video game addiction as a diagnosis. Taking that action would bring more attention to the situation plaguing many young people and those who care about them and get them the help they need, right? When I brought up the topic, however, Dr. Brody said he hoped the recognition – and inclusion in the DMR – would not be granted “Because, – they will medicate it.” Instead, he wanted studies and policy to focus on the underlying conditions of depression, etc. that cause people to escape into the games. This led to an exploration of the role of pharmaceutical companies in psychiatric research and the distrust many practitioners have for research funded by those companies – something I had not foreseen at all.
There is also the rare occasion when there is truly mutual listening between my guest and myself that becomes a process between us of uncovering the core question underneath what we discussing. Recently, I spoke with Maggie Jackson, author of Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming of a New Dark Age . Since the effect of media consumption on the development of attention in young children is at the center of my own work with parents and teachers, Maggie and I brought different elements to that conversation and we ended up coming to a simple observation about the attention of parents.
So, I agree with others here: prepare well, send a simple outline and then be ready to listen and follow where it may lead.
July 16th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Came across this clip from ForaTV and thought it germane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:58 am
It’s the element of surprise, when someone defies our expectations or takes a risk to give the non-rote response. Something new appears which but for the question you asked, would have remained unspoken. Thanks again for your comment.
jim
August 6th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Thanks Jim, very interesting ‘experiment’ .