Thread "Interviews- (question about style)" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 10:03PM, Mar. 13, 2009

I'm not sure where to put this… it can be about TV, radio, magazine interviews, or even those posted on DD.
—————————————

Anyway, What sorts of interviews do you prefer to read?

1. Ones where the interviewer makes themselves as much a part of the story?
2. Ones where it's more of an informal conversation?
3. Something more formal and interrogative? Even adversarial?
4. A formal style where the interviewer just poses simple questions and is mostly disinterested in the answers? -moving on to the next one after the last one is answered etc.

For me it depends on the context. I think for news I want an interrogative style, but NOT adversarial.
For DD interviews and media ones I prefer the informal conversation style -the interviewer has to be informed enough about the subject in order to direct the interview conversation to interesting topic though.

I dislike overly formal interviews where it appears the interviewer doesn't care about who they're talking to or what they answer. I also dislike interviews where the interviewer makes the thing mostly about themselves. Boooooring. :(

Posted at 11:03PM, Mar. 13, 2009

To me it doesnt matter as long as the interviewER only talks 20% of the time whereas the interviewEE talks 80% of the time.

It kinda annoys me when the interviewer just cuts off the guest just to say something –even if its in agreement with the guest or with my own personal views of the subject. JUST LET THE GUEST FINISH THE SENTENCE!!!

But anyway, who am I to talk. I do have a tendency to just cut people off in a conversation when I get overexcited. Though I politely apologize if ever that happens. lol!

Posted at 12:03AM, Mar. 14, 2009

for most of it, I prefer the informational conversation approach. like how they do on talk shows…. so you don't get too bored and stuff.

although for some more serious stuff out there, like asking one of the cabinet staff members what they intend to do about political laws, etc…. then I'd prefer the interrogative approach. No sense in letting our politicians get TOO comfortable with our interviewers, eh? I want them on the edge of their seats, sweating while trying not to make themselves look too bad, if that's possible.

Make sure that they aren't just reading from a card, or just feeding us lies.

Edit:
oh, and I agree with kyopol.

I particularly see a lot of this in political news segments where they interview politicians, etc. it's as if they're trying to take control of the conversation, put words into the politician's mouth, and then foist his/her opinions on us using the interview segment. it doesn't matter which side they are on… liberal or republicans… both does that.

example–an fictional piece that I typed below that reflect the events I have seen happen in a simlar fashion. I use Miss Clinton because she's familiar.

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I'm glad you asked that question. You see, I disagree with his ideals, because I think we should take a more proactive approach…."
Interviewer: "Ahaha! I see… so in other words, you're just saying McCain is just a senile old man with outdated values? Hear that folks? Miss Clinton here has no respect for the elderly and our old-fashioned values!"
Hillary: "What? no, all I was saying was that an proactive approach would…."
interviewer: "….And you know what happened with bill clintion, wink-wink. he left our country in a pretty sorry state and then he had to go get himself an blowjob in the oval office from that pretty woman! would Hillary Clinton just be the same?"
Hillary: "Wtf, I'm still here you know."

that type of interview is just annoying.

Posted at 11:03AM, Mar. 14, 2021

ahhhhh …. KYUPOL and AURORA MOON

i hate the future

Posted at 9:03PM, Mar. 14, 2021

lothar wrote:
ahhhhh …. KYUPOL and AURORA MOON

i hate the future

LOL

Posted at 3:03PM, Mar. 31, 2021

I prefer a conversational and usually pleasant interview, but it should definitely inform and tell the reader or listener something they don't already know, or in a way they didn't hear it before. Adversarial interviewing may be something that is better in, as discussed, a political sense (because that human garbage gets away with far too much, all the time, and should be placed under intense and uncomfortable scrutiny), but even that should be used in a way as to draw forth the real information of the matter, not just to be contentious.

If speaking with other creative people or being asked to answer questions from other creative people, I would almost always choose a more conversational, even casual style of approach for interviews. I don't like meaningless or irrelevant chatter in an interview, and I would like to make the most of the opportunity if I've been asked to speak in a significant way.

Interviews should be informative and interesting, in my opinion. If a person is being interviewed, it's probably because they have some interesting quality or have done interesting things, and that's what we'll want to hear about in the course of the interview.