The Problem with Interviews
Some doors aren’t meant to be opened.
A few months ago, I was thrilled to land an interview with a famous chef. I’d followed this person’s career for awhile, had done due diligence in preparation for the interview, and was certain I had crafted questions that would result in a story that presented the chef from a unique angle.
As I wrote in a blog, the interview was a terrible disappointment. The interviewee was difficult to engage, offered pithy and uninteresting responses to my non-invasive questions, and was, in fact, passive aggressive. I terminated the interview after 10 minutes and chalked it up to a learning experience… though I wasn’t entirely sure what I had learned.
*
I’ve just finished watching Ann Curry’s interview with Ingrid Betancourt and I think I finally understand the lesson.
“So, Ingrid Betancourt,” Curry begins, leaning towards Betancourt as if the two are about to share a juicy bit of gossip over coffee and a danish, “What did they do to you?”
Betancourt winces, draws back, breathes so deeply that you can hear the catch in her throat. She manages to assert that she is not ready to talk about the quotidian details of her six years of captivity, that she needs to process the experience, to clean herself of bad memories, and, most of all, to practice being present in the moment, trying to repair the wounds sustained by her children and her family, and to continue fighting for the liberation of remaining hostages.
Despite Betancourt’s obvious distress, Curry presses on, saying she just wants Betancourt to understand her motivation for the question… which is: “I just don’t think people will believe you when you say you don’t want vengeance, especially if you say that what happened was so terrible that you can’t talk about it.”
*
All week I have ached for Betancourt to the point of tears. She’s no longer a hostage in the jungle, but the joy of freedom is, I imagine, a partial one. How does one step from a life of isolation and deprivation where nothing makes sense back into the land of the living, where people you love have waited years to hold you yet can’t possibly begin to understand you? Who can presume to understand what kinds of terrorists continue to hold Betancourt a hostage inside herself, deep in that private place that resides in each of us, that place which is so primitive and profound that it’s simply outside of language? After one week, Curry expects her to talk about it? To the world?
I was appalled.
The problem with interviews is this: they assume that the public has a right to know. Everything. And we don’t. They assume–even when non-invasive–that the stories not yet told are the interviewer’s to find and tell. They assume a rapport and intimacy that is undeserved, because rapport and intimacy can only ever be developed with the trust that comes with time.
There are master interviewers; among those I admire most is Bill Moyers, whose skillfullness is unmatched by any of his peers. Moyers takes his time. He cares about his subject as a person, not just a good story or a prospective good rating. And that makes all the difference.
*
To read Betancourt in her own words–before the kidnapping–I highly recommend her memoir, Until Death Do Us Part: My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia
To learn more about Betancourt, read these recent pieces from MatadorPulse:
*”From Diplomat’s Daughter to FARC Hostage: Ingrid Betancourt Timeline”
*”Ingrid Betancourt: LIBRE!!”
Door & Lock Photo: documentarist (creative commons)
July 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Great post Julie. I remember your interview-from-hell post quite well
I, like others, are dying to know the details but then again, those details (like you’ve eloquently explained) may need to remain unshared.
Also, I know its difficult because she keeps getting pulled every direction, but Betancourt needs to take time away from the spotlight to heal. Otherwise, people will assume she’s ready to talk about her ordeal.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Lola-
Thanks for your comment!
What I interpreted Betancourt to be saying in the interview is that she does feel pulled in so many directions- on the one hand, she’d love to do nothing more than retreat into a familial cocoon and avoid all social engagement. On the other hand, she feels a profound responsibility towards the remaining hostages. As she says in the interview, she met the families of remaining hostages and she says that they seemed to feel as if “the light has gone off for them”– as if there’s no hope for their loved ones now that Betancourt, the trump card hostage, has been released. So she seems to feel as if she must be open to media requests, to public appearances, even though her personal needs might suggest otherwise, because to retreat would signify that she–the most important hostage–has forgotten them.
So complicated, isn’t it?
July 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I’ve gotten that slightly sick feeling from the Today show before, especially when they are talking to someone who has survived something horrific. I can understand their thinking, “hey she came on the show, what did she expect, what to give the viewers what they want” but on the other hand there is definitely a line between good journalism and exploitation. This example definitely falls under the latter, in my opinion.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Christine-
What was so interesting was observing Curry’s affect. As a former psychotherapist, I couldn’t help but wonder what was going through her mind. At moments, she looks terribly pained just to think about what Betancourt has been through–totally unable to maintain the “objectivity” of the journalist. At other moments, though, she has swung strangely to the other end of the pendulum. She invades the personal space of a woman who has had none for six years, leaning in and touching Betancourt’s handmade rosary bracelet, and continuing to finger it for a good 20 seconds. The whole thing was just bizarre.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Interviews, especially “cold” ones, are difficult. I don’t miss the days of calling the relatives of the recently dead and asking for comments on their lives. That chore made me wish it was appropriate to drink in the newsroom.
I know little of the Betancourt story, but the interview you describe is almost barbaric. The key to an interview, I have found, is getting the subject to talk, to open up, about anything. Don’t press, just talk. There’s a fine line between staying objective and being friendly. Curry obviously didn’t think about the “angles”.
I’m glad I didn’t see this interview. Watching such displays makes me angry.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Stevo-
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I always thought that asking someone “How do you feel?” when something horrible happened was just… well, dumb. How do you think they feel? Joyful?
Perhaps I’ve been overly harsh on Curry, but I don’t think so. I didn’t mention that she was also impatient with Betancourt, who between her trauma and the fact that her first language is not English, took some time to reflectupon her asnwers. Curry often pressed her by putting words in her mouth. “You feel guilty,” she would say, “That’s how you feel.” I used to be a therapist and in some ways, the job is similar to that of a journalist. You don’t put words in the subject’s mouth. You don’t ask leading questions. You DO, as you said so well, establish rapport and talk. That’s why Bill Moyers is such a great interviewer… and Ann Curry is not.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Thought-provoking post, Julie! Made me uncomfortable just reading about the interview, let alone seeing it.
Now I’m trying to think about interviews I’ve actually seen where I felt similarly uncomfortable – both are much less weighty examples, but I’ll share them anyhow.
1) Tyson Beckford on Oprah, talking about a hit-and-run car accident that almost killed him. He got to the point where he was left trapped in a burning vehicle while the truck that hit him sped away, and then broke down, barely getting out “how could someone do that… I have a son…” and I just wanted to shout at the TV that some things are private and Oprah should stop the cameras or something.
2) A pro hockey player who fell head over heels, slitting a teammate’s throat with his skate blade in the process (the teammate’s carotid artery was severed, but a trainer performed an on-ice emergency tracheotomy and he lived). After the game, a reporter asked the player how he felt when he realized it was his skate that had cut his teammate’s throat open. To his credit, the hockey player gave the reporter the dirtiest look ever, and said “What kind of a fucking question is that?”
I dunno where I’m going with this… Only that I guess I feel there’s a line, and it’s one thing if the interviewee voluntarily steps over it, and another when the reporter tries to drag them over it. Am I making sense?
July 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Eva- Thanks for your comment– and the great examples. You made perfect sense. I don’t think it matters if the examples are “less weighty”– what I think I’m trying to articulate is the fact that as viewers/consumers, we should be demanding more from journalists. We should be saying: Go deeper. But don’t go dumb. Don’t go crass. There’s plenty to ask about anyone’s life without trying to kick down the door of impropriety. I could think of 100 other questions I would have asked Betancourt that would have helped people understand what she experienced and why it’s important AND which would have left her intact as a human being who has suffered what is, for now at least, unspeakable cruelty.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
[...] Julie at Collazo Projects has an interesting piece on flubbed journalistic endeavors and gives her commentary on the Ann Curry/Ingrid Betancourt interview. [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 1:27 am
For Ann Curry to try and provoke a ’statement’ so she could be a reporter- hero is appalling – I agree with you. But what can we expect from networks anyway.
I forget her name, but this one author recommended to never start with broad questions but lead up to it. This was after she’d appeared at a radio station and the interviewer asked, “I’ve one question for you: how would you summarize your life/books into one single lesson?” She sat there speechless and defenseless. I myself sat in one interview where the host asked a question, than ran around the studio arranging CDs and then coming back to the mic for her next question, then taking off again.
I like Moyers. Like Charlie Rose too. Don’t like interviewers who talk more than interviewees. Whether people agree with me or not, Playboy has the best group of interviewers.
In your case, I’d blame the group of asses who interviewed Joe before you; he’d probably had had enough. You knew when to fold. Ann Curry needs to give you a call.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Emon-
You’re right- we should just give up on networks altogether. That’s why I’m a PBS/NPR nerd. I like Charlie Rose, too.
And Playboy interviews! Yes, you’re right on the money there. Over the years, they’ve interviewed Fidel Castro, Martin Luther King, and many more folks, and all of the interviews were always spectacular. Do they have them still?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hi,
I was so, so glad to see your comments on Ann Curry’s interview with Ingrid Betancourt.
It was so awkward, so uncomfortable to even watch. Ann Curry seems like a nice lady, but she’s an awful interviewer. She leans forward, she bugs her eyes out, and she becomes overly dramatic – “So, tell me, Ingrid Betancourt, what did they do to you?” I think, as you pointed out so well, that Ann undertook the interview as though she and Ingrid were having coffee together.
Ingrid is clearly trying to acclimate herself to her new life but Ann kept pressing and geez, it was so uncomfortable when Ingrid finally said, “I don’t want to talk about this…” and Ann said, “OK, OK, OK…” and went through her notes trying to find something else to talk about. It was kind of insensitive of her.
On another note, I have to say about Ingrid: if she doesn’t want to talk about it, going on the talk-show circuit is not the best game plan. What does she expect interviewers to ask her about?? She’s been living in the jungle for 6 years – they’re not going to ask her what she thinks of NAFTA or anything else BUT the jungle and what happened to her there.
I think she should take time off and get deep psychological therapy. I’ve been very, very surprised that her family has allowed her to do this. She’s been through too much to now accept every, single interview to every paper, magazine, cable station. It’s a bit much.
I really wish her all the best and hope she can move forward happily with her life.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Lou- Right on! Thanks for visiting the website and commenting; come back and visit!
July 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
It’s good to know that I’m not the only one who questioned some of the interviewer’s sense of ethics in some interviews with Ingrid Betancourt. Worst example is, unfortunately, Larry King’s interview with her (see CNN.com). What was “Mr. Sensitive” thinking when he asked her questions like “Did you see anybody at all killed? “, “You were physically tortured, as well as mentally tortured? ” and “were you sexually mistreated?”? Is it in her best interst to answer these questions? Will it further her healing process? Do we really need to know any more details? No! What is wrong with these interviewers? Don’t they have a heart? Just because she agreed to an interview (probably because she feels obliged to the media for keeping up the pressure to get her out of the jungle) doesn’t mean that journalists have the right to be disrespectful.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Oh, there was also one interview that I liked. Stephen Sackur’s BBC interview with Ms. Betancourt on HardTalk. He wrote an interesting article about it titled “Betancourt endures media frenzy” which you can find on BBC’s website.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Alice- Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I haven’t seen the Charlie Rose interview yet. I tend to like Charlie Rose because he has this strange little sense of humor that is often effective for establishing rapport; however, he’s not the best interviewer for sensitive subjects. Thank you for the recommendation regarding the Sackur interview; I definitely plan to look that up!