Of course, some interviews contain good questions from the interviewer and some fascinating answers from a strong personality, from which a quote may emerge that is used for the title. However, although an interview of this kind is ideal, it is rare. Most of the time, it goes very differently. It begins even before the interview has started. Often, when arranging an interview, the press attaché or the press department want to know which questions you are thinking of asking and they would like you to submit them in written form. This doesn’t bespeak professionalism, rather a lack of sovereignty. Only in absolutely exceptional cases are the questions submitted in advance. A list of keywords should be sufficient. It isn’t possible to the interview partner “to open up” without elements of surprise.
There are interview partners who give very brief answers. The CEO of a corporation will answer with merely “yes” or “no” and respond to the routine journalist questions, such as “Do you not fear that …?”, with simply; “Why should I?”. The interview – which had run out of steam after only a few minutes – was practically unusable and, with a little gloating, I noticed that the man was later fired. His style had obviously also annoyed his company. The gruelling contrast also exists, where an interview partner does not listen to what is being said, gets carried away and rambles on, digresses, simply makes hints, gives no opportunity for questions to be asked in between, and while time is running out, the interviewer is worrying about how to formulate a usable question-and-answer game as well as about what to shove in the title.
There are interview partners with loud and eloquent voices, who, using gestures, facial expressions and flashing looks, seem to tell the imposing truth with empathy and persuasion. At the end, when listening to the tape, I discover that it contains nothing but platitudes and has no newsworthy content. What can you do with that? I’ve also experienced the opposite: struggling through an interview in which the interview partner speaks pensively, quietly and monotonously, and I can barely stop myself from yawning. It is only when I later listen to the recording that I am electrified by his courageous statements, which in written form result in a really relevant product.
Then there are interviews with ambassadors who you can’t help but feel sorry for. Their body language shows that they themselves do not believe the phrases and explanations that they have to jam on behalf of their government. It feels that if they made their honest opinion known, they would lose their job. It’s terrible when an interview is arranged that suddenly turns into a “background conversation”, from which of course you can't report. Whether or not you’re allowed to quote one or more sentences or at least use what is said between the lines, depends on your negotiation skills. The contrary is hardly less horrible: when a background conversation is arranged (an there is no tape running) and at the end you’re told says: “You can write everything up!”
It is also bad when the counterpart would like to “authorise” the interview. This likes to be a type of safety net for both sides to avoid the publication of a misunderstanding or wrong figure. But sometimes the interview comes back completely distorted and all “good sayings” are defused. It’s best to throw a version like this away. Besides: if an ambassador or his government doesn’t like a published interview, it makes absolutely no sense in Germany and most EU member states (unfortunately not all) to protest to the federal government and demand an answer. This is called freedom of the press. My above-mentioned interview with the federal minister was somewhat unpleasant, snappish. This does not seem to only happen to me, however. My colleagues in media, for whom I spoke to her, just laughed: this happens to all journalists.
About the Author:
Ewald König is editor-in-chief at korrespondenten.tv, a project of the Berlin correspondent office.