TALENT QUEST ROUND 3: The Art of the Interview

Ok.

I've sat silent up until now... but this third round has really baffled me.

How is any of this supposed to show who could host/produce a good radio show?

Why would anyone want to hear the same questions in 3 interviews?

How on Earth does it help listeners pick a better interviewer by having them be interviewees?

Am I just a commoner, unable to grasp the far-sighted post-modernism of the Gen-X hipsters running this farcical spectacle?

Here's what you silly geese should have done:
Let people produce a short radio show!
Doesn't even have to be 30 minutes. How about 10?

So far, we've had a 2-minute, promo-like entry, which is understandable for being able to listen to the volume of entries... but then, once you've narrowed it down, why have you decided to get all cute and do this word association and interviewee nonsense?

Too bad we couldn't hear some new sounds, some inventive pilots, some creative uses of the taxpayer [CPB] money forked over to this.

Too bad it's still in the politically-correct, creativity-stifling stranglehold of NPR Jr. and it's hipster legions. (See: Bryant Park Project)

I'm curious how long the interviews the finalists conduct will be? Can they edit or is it live to tape?
It would make sense to pick one or the other since the two options each make for a very different experiment.
This is what I've been waiting for, a chance to hear the finalists as hosts!

I agree with Jim that interviews should be more like conversations. The most important thing: Do your research, do your research, do your research. You should know more about your subject than they are coming prepared to answer. And the most important question any interviewer can ask is "Why?" Not just "Why did you do this," but "Why do you think this happened?" and even the larger context, "Why do you think the world is like it is to set things up to make this happen?" That's when you start getting really interesting answers.

Here's my philosophy of the role of journalism, for what it's worth: The people who make the news (politicians, etc.) are like the workings of a fine watch. They are essential to keep the watch moving. But someone has to stand back and say, "That's all good and well, guys, but your watch says 2:30 and it's really a quarter after 4." That's the job of the journalist. And that's the job that has largely been abrogated in favor of discussions about the machinations of the clock. Don't get bogged down in the machinations. Keep one eye out for the actual time.

I had a big hunch this was the next challenege and I was right.

For the interview, bring up a subject that you're passionate about and that can be talked about anywhere from offices to restaurants. I also want to hear the story and let the guests in the situation talk about it. If you sense there is a missing answer, ask a follow-up question. Interviews are like puzzles. Only thing is you don't answer, it's your subjects that help you.

Now, I wasn't expecting the contestants being interviewed and this brings a unique element. For the contestants, be yourselves but also this will show your true colors and see that you fit the public radio mold.

Good Luck!

It's been said before: The interviewer stands in the shoes of the audience. The interviewer should ask the questions that a smart and well-informed audience member would like to hear answered. Of course, this doesn't mean just asking the obvious, or clearing up the complex points.

Seek the larger context and broader meaning. Find the human dimension and the emotional connection. Strip away the mask. Listen. Laugh.

Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038

The easy answer is I like to hear interviews with interesting people who have interesting things to say. That's also the trite answer. What makes the interview interesting?
My initial thoughts: I like an interview that sounds like a natural conversation, with followups that flow from the conversation rather than a preconceived list of questions.
I don't just want information about their work, I want to know how they put their thoughts together, about their construct of the world. That doesn't need to be direct, it's better when hints of it are revealed during the course of the conversation.
I especially like it when things take an unexpectedly intimate or odd turn. (made up examples: What? She changed her nursing major and became an astronomer because of a Ford Galaxy ad on an episode of Newhart? or: Barry Bonds helped birth lambs during high school for a science fair project? Really!)
Of course, it was fun when Diane Reahm kept badgering Henry Kissenger when he was being a jerk and insisting that the only interesting thing he had come to discuss was his new book.
Perhaps, if we are truly lucky, one of the Magnificent Seven will astound us by creating an entirely new form of interview (that maybe seems more like a play or something, who knows?).
Stretch the boundaries. That's something I'd really like to hear.