Post means post-production, or the phase of an interview when its time to fix any problems that may have come up during the interview and turn the conversation into something concise and coherent. Many times, if you’re lucky, this isn’t necessary. Most interviewees stay on point and can compartmentalize thoughts within their answers, so their argument is both logical and chronological. This means the discussion tracks an order of importance path; from introducing the listener to the interviewee, to the meat of the discussion, to a more light-hearted conclusion. It’s a standard interview arc and one listeners have come to expect, mostly because it works.
But when an interviewee rarely uses punctuation, editing the conversation into a listenable final product can be a nightmare. There are people who can talk for long minutes at a time and never take a breath. Sometimes, talking without a break is less malicious than psychological. Some people are never asked to give their opinion or are never allowed to finish once they start. So they are delighted to talk and because it may be rare to have someone actually listening, they may not know the cues of polite society that should tell them it’s time to pause and allow dialogue.
I suspect though that some interviewees have learned to do this purposely and as a strategy (1) to prevent the interviewer from immediately challenging the interviewee’s suppositions, (2) in an attempt to shift power in the conversation to the interviewee, or (3) to purposely make editing difficult.
When an interviewee talks without letting the interviewer ask follow up questions, they are trying to push an agenda. They are forcing out talking points that represent an ideology which has no tolerance for examination. Or they are trying to plant something in the listener’s mind with such force that they hope an interviewer’s questions won’t uproot it. That’s hard to deal with but not impossible. The best way, if you’re not up against the clock, is to simply say you have X number of questions and you want to get them all asked before you finish. You’ve put the interviewee on notice that no matter how long they talk, they know every question is going to get asked no matter how long they try to delay you asking them. If you are up against the clock, you either take control of the interview or end it.
And this can lead to shifting power which can be a tougher problem, because then, it’s not about the content of the conversation as much as it’s about the dynamic between the interviewer and the interviewee. But an aggressive interviewee can be dealt with in a couple ways. An interviewer can butt heads with them once as a way to show them they are not going to dominate the conversation but then choose not to escalate confrontation beyond that. If the interviewee chooses to escalate, the interviewer lets them while remaining calm, knowing it it they who will come off looking like an ass. Otherwise, an interviewer may try to reign in a confrontational interviewee with a long pause after a tirade, or they may come back with a dispassionately asked follow up question devoid of any emotional energy. Using the interviewee’s name is also another method of bringing the discussion back to a balanced interaction. The key is for the interviewer to not let themselves be drawn into the interviewee’s own unique form of crazy.
But no matter why run-on answers happen, they can cause real technical problems. Namely, someone who isn’t using punctuation doesn’t have natural breaks in their speech, or if they do, they may not always line up with logical breaks. Natural breaks are places where people take a breath or where their inflection falls such that editing that point to another point where it later rises makes for an almost unnoticeable transition. Logical breaks are where someone carries a complete thought to its conclusion. The thing is they don’t always happen at the same time and are a lot less likely to happen without punctuation.
Ideally, editing is where a natural break coincides with a logical break. But now imagine two lanes of traffic, both moving in the same direction but at different speeds. Trying to shoot an arrow across both lanes without hitting something is almost impossible and that’s what editing an interview with someone speaking in run-on sentences is like. It can make for a jerky sounding interview and no producer or audience wants to listen to that. From an aesthetic point of view, unfortunately, smooth sounding bullshit sounds a lot better than choppy sounding truth.
But no self respecting editor will give a message they believe is being manipulated a pass. They will use every tool in the effects tab to smooth, to separate, to equalize and to make each word of a circular breather stand on its own, not lean on those around it like a phalanx of bullies trying to bums rush the listener.
Talking to people with an agenda and a need to frame a message is very interesting. I have talked with several politicians in recent weeks who have endeavored to restate the question I asked, not because it was inaccurate, but because it casts attention on an aspect of a particular issue that they wish to divert attention from. Specifics would be indelicate, but suffice it to say that some politicians of some persuasions have a vested interest in casting a subject in the best light, in part by not using the language they perceive to belong to their opponent.
If politician A calls something X, politician B may choose to call it Y in part, to not acknowledge that the two actually share a common definition. To admit commonality anywhere with the opposing party could put the support of their diehard constituents in jeopardy. Or to use the language of the other side might risk giving credence to that other argument (even if they agree with it), which must be avoided at all costs.
I talked about message control and agenda setting in an earlier post, but there, I was talking about how people speak. Here, I’m talking about what they actually do or don’t say in an effort to steer. The job of the interviewer isn’t to let the interviewee drone on their message unchallenged in an attempt to put it, them or their party in an unexamined light.
But it is interesting to watch when they try.
Sometimes, as media and journalists, we can get caught in our own rules of fairness.
I don’t have a good handle on why some media outlets focus solely on major party candidates during forums in advance of presidential, general and off year elections. Maybe it’s got to do with polling and how the issues of third party candidates aren’t always the same main issues as they are for the majors. Maybe it’s got to do with the influence of the majors who want the punch bowl all to themselves and more or less convince the media through ad buys that they deserve it. Maybe it’s got to do with the fact that the numbers of the minors don’t come close to those of two party candidates and so, the media – a numbers driven concern – makes an economic decision that the largest audience comes from those who capture the largest numbers. I don’t know.
But I do know the standards of Sigma Delta Chi, which is the organization for the Society of Professional Journalists. And its stated missions are (1) to promote and defend the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press; (2) encourage high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism; and (3) promote and support diversity in journalism. So when Third Party candidate Jason Levin crashed a debate between only Democratic Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Republican challenger Dennis Richardson at the editorial offices of the Pamplin Media Group on September 23rd, it was kinda what the latter three deserved.
Political forums are not private love-ins. They’re should be more like racous holiday dinners where the whole family is at the table. Of course, maybe that’s just me. I happen to like the idea of the unpredictable and the un-anointed peeing in the sacred pool. That’s why although I think weather modeling and the Dow Jones Industrial 30-day average are cute, they show us every day that we have no idea what will or should happen next. I root not for the havoc, but the humbling.
Besides, if Oregon’s Ballot Measure 90 passes, getting a seat at that table may be even more difficult for third party candidates in the future. Congratulations to Mr. Levin for having the kahunas to pull out his own chair and forcing forum hosts to put their journalistic principles above whatever it was that made them initially not.
It’s 1:30 a.m. and I am just finishing up an edit of my interview with Herbie Hancock.
For the entire conversation, Mr. Hancock talked about music and kindness couched in Buddhism and Humanism (he’s a Buddhist and a Humanist) and the need for music to bring people together. Now, I’ve listened to Herbie Hancock my entire life. From Monster to Dis is da Drum; everything before and in-between. And there is nothing he’s done that I haven’t enjoyed. Today, I got the chance to ask him every question I could think of about who he is, not necessarily what he does. I mean, I’m not versed in the language of music. I don’t understand synthesizers or beats. But I know how his music makes me feel and I know how hard living is sometimes. And I wanted to know how much of what I feel does he feel? How much of what he feels does he wonder if other people feel?
It turns out, quite a lot on both counts. And when the conversation was over, I realized I had talked to him for 63 minutes when my time slot was for 15. He ignored the clock and kept talking. He said he was glad to get the chance to express some of the things he was thinking about the world and the way he sees his place in it. And when I hung up, all I could say was “Wow”!
OK, so I am looking for music to edit into the interview and I go to his most recent work, “The Imagine Project”. It seems to be a reinterpretation of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, only with guest voices Pink (who I love), Seal (who I love) and a bunch of other amazing musicians like Jeff Beck, India Arie and Oumou Sangare. And at the center of it all, there is Herbie Hancock, the man who just gave me an hour of his time to ask him the most personal questions I could think of, wearing headphones and jamming behind a studio piano.
And I’m thinking, how can I thank this man for the gift he’s given me? And I realize the answer is to produce the best interview I can, but not just his. I always thought my goal was to produce good interviews, but sometimes, good sounds like mediocre. I always knew I wouldn’t try to produce perfect interviews since that is a goal that would surely kill me. I’m hard enough on me as it is. But watching him, at 74, a virtuoso, doing what he so deeply loves and doing it with a mind that has probably forgotten more than many people will ever know, I see that my goal should always be to shoot for making excellent interviews.
Because he’s all about excellence and deep down, I love things excellently done too. I can’t talk to Herbie Hancock for an hour and not come away thinking I can certainly work to do what I do better. He reminded me that it’s OK to love what I do. I just need to make sure I do it well and that it helps bring people together.
Here my interview with Herbie Hancock here.
See the video for The Imagine Project here.
This is a quickie.
Sometimes, I don’t understand how I get a particular interview. It’s not that I don’t consider myself a good interviewer. I am. And it’s not that I don’t work very hard to uphold standards of journalistic integrity. I do. But there is also a lot of alchemy involved in who decides to talk to you or not.
For instance, I know that many people I talk to don’t necessarily need to talk to me. I work at a small community radio station that has a reputation amoung some as being too far to the left and amoung others as not being to the left far enough. To that, I bring years of experience with the government and the military; not exactly the most liberal institutions ideologically. Politically, I kinda sorta end up somewhere around the center. I said all that to say the gun behind me is respectable but not huge. It’s not like we’re the Nation Station with numbers that dominate market share in the MSA or anything. But some of the people who’ve returned my calls and agreed to talk to me are amazing. Which leads me to the alchemy part. Namely, you don’t know who is talking about you to whom.
So, when somebody calls me back who seemed like a real long shot, I sometimes think, “OK, is this a vote of confidence that was cast for me by someone I’ll never discover, even if I might personally know them”?
And that is some humbling stuff.
As a reporter and a journalist, you want to have a decent name. You want to be seen as fair. What with so many people attacking us for bias at home, while overseas, journalists are attacked much more severely for so much less, you want to hold up the profession as best you can. I sincerely appreciate the callbacks I get and when they are truly amazing, after those first few seconds of surprise, I try to remember to close my mouth so I can get to work.
Sometimes, you never know who is working for … or against you. It’s probably for the best.
Sometimes, reporters want wheat. For example, they might want to see where something comes from; the raw version – the data – before other people have had the chance to put their interpretation on it. Other times, reporters want bread, meaning they want to hear the interpretation and compare it against the raw information. When a reporter asks for bread and gets wheat, it’s useless. And when a reporter asks for wheat and gets bread, again, it’s useless.
Another bread versus wheat example is when a radio reporter in particular asks a source for information via the medium of audio and they get text. If they specifically ask for an audio interview and get text, it’s not really helping. Why? Because one of the things that makes reporting credible is being able to attribute comments to a source. Yes, text can be quoted, but it’s a layer removed from the source. Sources know this, which is why sometimes, some of them refuse to respond with their voice to a question for comment. Or, during an interview, they will ask a reporter to turn off their recorder but allow written notes.
As a reporter, this has always struck me as a little cheesy, like the source is saying, “OK, you can have proof, but not very good proof”. If a source promises something and they don’t deliver, and then rationalizes it later, it can be frustrating. But it certainly tells you something about that source.