Journalists ‘should be interviewed once a year’

I like this post by John Longhurst on the Canadian Journalism Project.

He says journalists should be interviewed themselves from time to time, so they know what it’s like. And that the interview should be published, so they know what it’s like to have a stranger’s account of themselves on public display.

I agree. I’ve been interviewed a few times over the years and I find it quite disconcerting being on the receiving end of the questions, rather than asking them. Harder still to not be in control of how the interview notes are written up, which quotes are chosen and what context is given. And frustrating to see my name misspelled, past job titles inflated or conflated, and short quotes look odd when singled out from a longer conversation. It’s an eye opener.

No doubt there are countless others who’ve been interviewed and wept when they saw how their 20-minute conversation got condensed into a couple of paragraphs stripped of nuance, context and in some cases rendered insensible.

Journalists are just doing their job, of course. They have to distill and compress information and quotes if they are to fit them inside their 400-word or 60-second story slots.  But it wouldn’t hurt for journalists to get a sensitivity check now and then.

Here’s how John puts it:

It’s hard to explain the sense of vulnerability you feel as you hand your story and comments over to someone who may — or may not — really understand what you are trying to do or say. It’s especially challenging for those of us who have worked outside of the traditional beat areas: No Canadian media outlet has anyone on staff who specializes in relief and development, for example. As a result, who you get interviewed by depends on who the editor decides to pick that morning — if you’re lucky, they know where Ghana is or have a bit of background about the conflict in Darfur. Anything else is a bonus.

Those who do the interviewing likely seldom think of how it must feel to be at the other end of the process. It’s just part of the job — maybe just one of two or three stories that have to be chased down that day. But for the person being interviewed, it may be one of the most important experiences of their life. For many people — for those who are not professionally involved in work that requires them to deal with the media — it may be the only time in their whole lives that they will be in the newspaper or on the radio or TV. It’s an awesome responsibility for a journalist.

My experience of being interviewed, and doing interviews, makes me think that all reporters should be interviewed at least once a year. To make it even more realistic, the person interviewing them should never have met them before, should be told only an hour or so before the interview who they are interviewing, and about what, and know little or nothing about the subject.

It goes without saying that the subject cannot see the end result before it is published or broadcast. To maximize the anxiety, the final result should be posted on the Web or some other conspicuous place where anyone can see it.

Oh, and let’s not forget about pictures: lots will be taken and you won’t be allowed to go home to change into different clothing. Some video will be a bonus.

Speaking of video, all TV journalists will have an additional requirement: They will have to do “the walk” or one of its equivalents — sitting at their computers and looking busy, reading a report and looking terribly interested or answering a fake phone call and pretending to be fascinated by the person on the other end.

Trust me — it isn’t easy to “look natural” when walking nowhere while a camera is trained on you.