Journalism has competing tenants. One says, “Tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them and tell them what you told them”. The point of doing that, of repeating key aspects of a story throughout the story, is to reinforce the message since a long story can give people so much information they can get lost in it.
But the other one is that a lot of journalism tends to speak to people at about a 7th grade level. There, the point is keeping things simple helps people follow the message.
Where these collide is the redundant review. I often hear an interviewer ask a guest a question, the guest gives a perfectly cogent answer, and the interviewer, for some reason, restates that answer, and maybe even puts a slightly different spin on it than the guest intends.
I wonder why this happens. Maybe the interviewer is trying to stay loyal to tenant number one. Or maybe, they’re trying to stay true to tenant number two. Sometimes, I wonder if there is a number three, namely, the interviewer is working the answer out in their own mind to make sure they understand what the guest is actually saying.
I have a third tenant that makes this tendency by some interviewers understandable. The interviewer should be a surrogate for the listener. And if there is ever any question in the interviewer’s mind that a listener might not understand what a guest is saying, the interviewer should speak up. My year of interviews with Oregon political office seekers proved this to be necessary over and over.
I’ve talked about interviewers adding spin, or restating or talking down to their audience. Each of those is definitely annoying. But not everybody who listens has the same capacity to understand and for that reason, journalism has to give those listeners the benefit of the doubt. For those with capacity plus, they should see that as a win-win for us all.