Introduction to Interviews
Interviews are a key staple of broadcasting and print media and are used to inform and entertain. Interviews can add to a debate, give audiences information, explore an issue and simply for fun and to make people laugh. Different styles are used depending on the aim of the interview and on the audience. Communication skills are important in interviewing and different skills are needed depending on the context. For example Paxman uses direct questioning to cut to the meat of an issue whereas Wendy Williams builds rapport to create a free flowing interview where her interviewee is relaxed open. I am going to look at different interview styles in different medias to examine different interview styles, structures and purpose.
Interviews are a key staple of broadcasting and print media and are used to inform and entertain. Interviews can add to a debate, give audiences information, explore an issue and simply for fun and to make people laugh. Different styles are used depending on the aim of the interview and on the audience. Communication skills are important in interviewing and different skills are needed depending on the context. For example Paxman uses direct questioning to cut to the meat of an issue whereas Wendy Williams builds rapport to create a free flowing interview where her interviewee is relaxed open. I am going to look at different interview styles in different medias to examine different interview styles, structures and purpose.
Entertainment Interviews
Entertainment interviews often have two purposes, not only to entertain but also to allow celebrities to promote a film. In this interview Kevin Hart and JB Smooth are on the Wendy Williams show to promote a new program ‘Real House Husbands of Hollywood’
Entertainment interviews often have two purposes, not only to entertain but also to allow celebrities to promote a film. In this interview Kevin Hart and JB Smooth are on the Wendy Williams show to promote a new program ‘Real House Husbands of Hollywood’
Wendy interviews Kevin and then JB Smooth comes out later. She builds a connection with both of them, mentioning times she had worked (with Kevin) and has seen JB. This builds up rapport with the interviewee and allows the audience to feel connected too. Her questions are all gossip and informal about celebrity life style, Kevin’s clothes, his children and his relationship. She shows active listening yet there is definitely a sense of a two way conversation and friends chatting. She asks open questions and allows Kevin to be funny and the conversation just flows out.
It is personal and cosy because Wendy and Kevin know each other. It makes the audience feel part of the 'gossip' session and it is light hearted.
When JB joins the pair she asks him a question about how he and Kevin know each other and establishes that she knows him too. This is part of her including him and they are just having a relaxed, normal and intimate conversation that the audience are part of.
Wendy then moves onto the promotional part asking about their new show and she does it in such a way that it still feels just like a conversation. She winds up pretty abruptly ending the conversation and thanking them both for being here.
The target audience for this interview is fans of the show, people who like celebrity gossip, and fans of Kevin Hart. It is not serious. It is simple light entertainment–she doesn’t make you think too hard.
This show is 'Celebrity Juice' and it has Keith Lemon engaging with Joey Essex in a comedic way. It isn't really an interview, more of a quiz. However it is very funny. Its purpose is pure entertainment focussing on celebrity. This show is moving image, and works well as moving image as the people look good (which is easy on the eye) and they smile and laugh a lot (which makes the audience smile).
The questions that Keith asks are very simple and light hearted and highlight Joey’s reputation for being ‘thick’. The questions are closed requiring one word answers. The interview is very comedic from the start and carries on with the laughs the whole way through. It feels like school when you are laughing at some-one being stupid and you are relieved the teacher isn’t picking on you.
This next clip is from ‘Alan Carr- Chatty Man’. Alan is interviewing Keith Lemon from Celebrity Juice. The title reflects the style of the interviews - 'chatty' being slang and informal so starting to watch it we already know it isn't going to be too serious.
This show is very similar to the two previous clips. It is made for entertainment and promotional purposes and is being played for laughs. The interviewer and interviewee are having the craic and bouncing off each other. They are enjoying themselves and laughing and making the audience enjoy themselves and laugh too. Alan has a light touch with questioning. It feels more like a normal conversation than an interview but he does ask questions to allow Keith to promote himself and his shows Celebrity Juice and Through the Keyhole asking about his travels and the gossip about people on the show. It is very laid back.
These interviews have been comedic and for entertainment/promotional reasons. Audiences enjoy being entertained and having a laugh. They like to hear celebrity gossip and know what films are coming up. The interview styles particularly for Wendy Williams and Alan Carr are to create a relaxed and laid back atmosphere. They know their purpose is to support their celeb to talk about what they are promoting and to keep the audience entertained. Moving image allows the audience to almost feel they are in the room with the interviewer and celebrity. The structure is to ask questions they know the audience are interested in and allow the celebrity the time to ‘perform’ and get what they are promoting across. The target audience for this interview are fans of the show, people looking to just sit and relax after work or school and fans of the interviewer/interviewee. They mainly just talk about gossip, and doing funny things.
Combative Interviews.
A combative interview style allows the interviewer free rein to tackle the interviewee asking tough questions and bringing clearer understanding to a topic or issue. It can be used to explore in depth issues that are important to the public.
This interview is from Newsnight which is a weekday BBC Television current affairs programme specialising in analysis and often robust cross-examination of senior politicians. In this interview, Paxman, the programmes anchor-man is interviewing Russell Brand. This interview is typical Paxman as he is combative, direct, aggressive and attacking at times. Paxman is the voice for the viewers of BBC Newsnight who would have been seen headlines about Brand but maybe not known much about him. Brand is a comedian who had been in the news around the time of the interview for his controversial views.
These interviews have been comedic and for entertainment/promotional reasons. Audiences enjoy being entertained and having a laugh. They like to hear celebrity gossip and know what films are coming up. The interview styles particularly for Wendy Williams and Alan Carr are to create a relaxed and laid back atmosphere. They know their purpose is to support their celeb to talk about what they are promoting and to keep the audience entertained. Moving image allows the audience to almost feel they are in the room with the interviewer and celebrity. The structure is to ask questions they know the audience are interested in and allow the celebrity the time to ‘perform’ and get what they are promoting across. The target audience for this interview are fans of the show, people looking to just sit and relax after work or school and fans of the interviewer/interviewee. They mainly just talk about gossip, and doing funny things.
Combative Interviews.
A combative interview style allows the interviewer free rein to tackle the interviewee asking tough questions and bringing clearer understanding to a topic or issue. It can be used to explore in depth issues that are important to the public.
This interview is from Newsnight which is a weekday BBC Television current affairs programme specialising in analysis and often robust cross-examination of senior politicians. In this interview, Paxman, the programmes anchor-man is interviewing Russell Brand. This interview is typical Paxman as he is combative, direct, aggressive and attacking at times. Paxman is the voice for the viewers of BBC Newsnight who would have been seen headlines about Brand but maybe not known much about him. Brand is a comedian who had been in the news around the time of the interview for his controversial views.
Paxman’s usual interviewing style is combative –asking questions that his audience (intelligent consumers of news and political issues) want to hear answers to. In this interview Paxman asks Brand a mixture of open and closed questions which are direct and challenging. The first question - 'Who are you to edit a political magazine?' introduces the tone of the interview and sounds like an attack on who Brand is. The questions are quite patronising and could easily trip up some-one less confident or sure of their position. 'But is it true you don't even vote?'
At the start Paxman keeps asking the same question, 'If you don't vote how do you have any authority to talk about politics then?' even though he words it in different ways, like 'you can't even be arsed to vote' Brand answers the question, but Paxman isn’t happy with his answers and keeps challenging him.
This interview is like a tennis game but with words, it just keeps going over and back. Brand is putting across his ideas and Paxman is challenging him trying to get to the heart of Brand’s politics
The target audience would be the fans of Brand wanting to know his opinion on politics and he has an interesting point of view and Paxman challenges him well. Newsnight viewers would also be interested to, the fans of the show, politics and people that have an interest in the government. The purpose of this interview is for Brand to get his point across, but also Paxman to get his point across as well, but it ends up in a big argument (even though they both remain to stay calm).
This interview was in the top ten of most watched Youtube videos of 2013 and it is because it is a really good interview. You hear views from Brand that might not be heard in the mainstream and he argues with heart, passion and intelligence. Paxman’s interview style highlights the weaknesses in Brand’s politics but the pair of them connect at the end of the interview when Paxman acknowledges Brand’s anger at the system and Brand brings a personal story connected to Paxman’s grandmother.
I think this is a good interview to watch because of the two styles of Brand and Paxman. Paxman has a good balance of direct and challenging questioning and good listening skills. Paxman’s body language and tone of voice are quite disdainful, yet you know it is an act. Interestingly Paxman revealed in an interview afterwards that he hadn’t voted in the last election.
This is the 'Last week tonight' show with john Oliver interviewing Stephen Hawking. This interview is meant to be comedic(and it is) but it turns out combative with Stephen Hawking(in a way that is funny) and we don't know if it's scripted or not(it probably is).
At the start Paxman keeps asking the same question, 'If you don't vote how do you have any authority to talk about politics then?' even though he words it in different ways, like 'you can't even be arsed to vote' Brand answers the question, but Paxman isn’t happy with his answers and keeps challenging him.
This interview is like a tennis game but with words, it just keeps going over and back. Brand is putting across his ideas and Paxman is challenging him trying to get to the heart of Brand’s politics
The target audience would be the fans of Brand wanting to know his opinion on politics and he has an interesting point of view and Paxman challenges him well. Newsnight viewers would also be interested to, the fans of the show, politics and people that have an interest in the government. The purpose of this interview is for Brand to get his point across, but also Paxman to get his point across as well, but it ends up in a big argument (even though they both remain to stay calm).
This interview was in the top ten of most watched Youtube videos of 2013 and it is because it is a really good interview. You hear views from Brand that might not be heard in the mainstream and he argues with heart, passion and intelligence. Paxman’s interview style highlights the weaknesses in Brand’s politics but the pair of them connect at the end of the interview when Paxman acknowledges Brand’s anger at the system and Brand brings a personal story connected to Paxman’s grandmother.
I think this is a good interview to watch because of the two styles of Brand and Paxman. Paxman has a good balance of direct and challenging questioning and good listening skills. Paxman’s body language and tone of voice are quite disdainful, yet you know it is an act. Interestingly Paxman revealed in an interview afterwards that he hadn’t voted in the last election.
This is the 'Last week tonight' show with john Oliver interviewing Stephen Hawking. This interview is meant to be comedic(and it is) but it turns out combative with Stephen Hawking(in a way that is funny) and we don't know if it's scripted or not(it probably is).
This interview is a interview of Katie Hopkins on 'This Morning' This interview is combative and is 2 people trying to get their point across, both of the people think that they are right and they are arguing to try and win the argument (like a tennis game).
This interview with Katie Hopkins is from ‘This Morning’ with Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby. This interview uses combative questioning although Phillip and Holly are less aggressive than Paxman as the audience is different. There are two interviewers who have counter views. Katie Hopkins doesn’t let her children play with other kids if they have names like Tyler, Charmaine or Chantel. Anna May Mangan, Holly and Philip are challenging her but Katie doesn’t shift her opinion. Philip has done some research and has found educated and successful people with the names that Katie objects too. After some background to introduce her guests Holly kicks off the questioning with an open question to Katie, ‘What can you tell from a name?’ Philip challenges Katie’s views. Holly gets quite involved and you can see she is taking it personally. Holly isn't meant to get involved -she even says 'sorry i just can't help but get involved' because she feels so strongly about it.
Because there are two participants the interview has to manage and make sure that both points of views are heard. You can see Holly getting frustrated and she asks questions from this emotional place ‘why would you do that?’ (restrict who her children play with). This makes for good viewing as audiences like to see a bit of emotional content particularly if it is an issue that they would feel strongly about themselves.
Although this interview isn’t as strongly combative as Paxman, it shows people’s fixed views. Both of the people think that they are right and they are arguing to try and win the argument. It is a bit like a tennis match as views are lobbed about. One person makes a point, the other butts in and throws in a comeback and so it carries on. During the interview there is one time where we can't hear what people are saying as there are three people talking at once (including Holly). Philip manages to restore order which is a good skill for an interviewer.
Combative interviews are often between two people arguing trying to get their point across and win the argument(apart from the Katie Hopkins interview where it was 2 against 1). I would describe Combative interviews as a tennis match, as i have already said before. Two people arguing 1 person buts in a point, the other one hits a comeback right back at him, then it carries on like that. Combative interviews are often people in the government/a politician (like Paxman), but sometimes it is just people talking about a certain topic that has occurred (like Katie Hopkins)
The target audience here would be people who watch morning TV, like stay at home mothers and fathers, people on night shifts or older people. This issue would be interesting to parents. The show is lighter than Paxman but still tackles issues and is also for entertainment
Investigative Interview
This is the 'Last Week Tonight' show with John Oliver interviewing Stephen Hawking. The title of the programme shows that it is going to be tongue in cheek comedy and the interview is taking the piss out of an investigative interview style.
Because there are two participants the interview has to manage and make sure that both points of views are heard. You can see Holly getting frustrated and she asks questions from this emotional place ‘why would you do that?’ (restrict who her children play with). This makes for good viewing as audiences like to see a bit of emotional content particularly if it is an issue that they would feel strongly about themselves.
Although this interview isn’t as strongly combative as Paxman, it shows people’s fixed views. Both of the people think that they are right and they are arguing to try and win the argument. It is a bit like a tennis match as views are lobbed about. One person makes a point, the other butts in and throws in a comeback and so it carries on. During the interview there is one time where we can't hear what people are saying as there are three people talking at once (including Holly). Philip manages to restore order which is a good skill for an interviewer.
Combative interviews are often between two people arguing trying to get their point across and win the argument(apart from the Katie Hopkins interview where it was 2 against 1). I would describe Combative interviews as a tennis match, as i have already said before. Two people arguing 1 person buts in a point, the other one hits a comeback right back at him, then it carries on like that. Combative interviews are often people in the government/a politician (like Paxman), but sometimes it is just people talking about a certain topic that has occurred (like Katie Hopkins)
The target audience here would be people who watch morning TV, like stay at home mothers and fathers, people on night shifts or older people. This issue would be interesting to parents. The show is lighter than Paxman but still tackles issues and is also for entertainment
Investigative Interview
This is the 'Last Week Tonight' show with John Oliver interviewing Stephen Hawking. The title of the programme shows that it is going to be tongue in cheek comedy and the interview is taking the piss out of an investigative interview style.
It looks like it is not scripted but really it is complete with the audience sound track of laughter. It is supposedly exploring Hawking’s scientific theories by bringing them to the public. The interviewer highlights that Hawking’s ideas are hard to understand and ends up questioning Hawking about what a ‘movie watching audience’s ideas of science are such as about robots and other universes. The interviewer takes the piss out of himself and Hawking enjoys playing to his public persona. The questions are a mixture of open and closed and played for laughs. The audience can learn a little about Hawking’s work but there will be no surprises as the script is tight. The target audience is for fans of the show or people looking for a laugh and to be entertained. The audience are laughing at the piss-take of the interview style as well as the content. It could introduce Hawking’s work to a broader audience so it is promotional
Personal
A personal interview would be when the interviewer finds out about the personal experience of some-one who has been affected by a news incident.. This is a good example of a personal interview as James has had a personal experience of being there when 9/11 took place.
This is an interview with James Dorney who was on the 92nd floor of the South Tower in New York when the planes hit on 9/11. It is part of marking the ten year anniversary. There was so much news coverage on 9/11 that it is hard to find fresh stories.
Personal
A personal interview would be when the interviewer finds out about the personal experience of some-one who has been affected by a news incident.. This is a good example of a personal interview as James has had a personal experience of being there when 9/11 took place.
This is an interview with James Dorney who was on the 92nd floor of the South Tower in New York when the planes hit on 9/11. It is part of marking the ten year anniversary. There was so much news coverage on 9/11 that it is hard to find fresh stories.
This interviewer has done his research and is using this to encourage the questioner to tell his story of what happened. His questions are suggestive and guiding as he knows what parts of the story he wants James to share. However I don’t think it is a very good interview. The subject matter is tricky. It was obviously a traumatic experience yet this doesn’t come across. The story keeps being interrupted as the interviewer butts in with closed questions putting words into his mouth ‘panic..mayhem’. It is like the interviewer has heard the story and wants James to tell it in a different way. He asks a lot of closed questions and doesn’t let the story unfold
The target audience is people that would be interested in hearing a first hand account of a news item that had a big impact on the world at the time. But it isn’t done well and the interviewer keeps putting words into James mouth rather than just letting him get on with his story.
Promotional
Promotional interviews are mainly for celebrities to get free advertisement, and go on the radio, newspaper, magazine, or a show to talk about a book or movie that they have just realised or been in. The 'Wendy Williams interviewing Kevin Hart' interview is promotional of his new movie, and clothing.
This is a interview of Daniel Radcliffe, where he talks about the Harry potter movies, then he talks about his Broadway that he is doing, and a film that he was in that is coming out within the next year.
The target audience is people that would be interested in hearing a first hand account of a news item that had a big impact on the world at the time. But it isn’t done well and the interviewer keeps putting words into James mouth rather than just letting him get on with his story.
Promotional
Promotional interviews are mainly for celebrities to get free advertisement, and go on the radio, newspaper, magazine, or a show to talk about a book or movie that they have just realised or been in. The 'Wendy Williams interviewing Kevin Hart' interview is promotional of his new movie, and clothing.
This is a interview of Daniel Radcliffe, where he talks about the Harry potter movies, then he talks about his Broadway that he is doing, and a film that he was in that is coming out within the next year.
Although this is a moving image clip, this would have worked well on radio as it has the background sounds of the crowd and music which add atmosphere so that the audience can feel part of this event. Daniel Radcliffe talks with great warmth and respect for his fans, and the purpose of the interview is to promote Daniel Radcliffe and the latest Harry Potter film, to let the fans know a little about the movie and what Daniel Radcliffe is doing next. I think the interviewer is skilled as she has good communication skills. In this clip we miss the opening of the interview but she uses words to paint a picture of the scene with all the fans camped out in the bad weather conditions. This and Radcliffe’s answer about having the hardiest fans build rapport with her target audience. The interviewer then uses a suggestive question ‘What sort of a treat are we in for tonight?’ This continues building rapport with the audience as it fits with how the fans see the franchise. She also gets key points in that the audience would be interested in,’ last film, first in 3D’.
The interviewer uses an open question after expressing how she feels emotional after watching him grow up on screen. This is a nice touch and skilfully done as it would resonate with how others have seen him grow up and yet the interview stays focussed on Radcliffe and how he has developed. She has good communication skills, listens well and is good with words. ‘Where is Daniel Radcliffe weaving his magic now?’ This gives Radcliffe an opportunity to promote his current Broadway show and his new film. The interviewer winds up by returning back to the dedicated fans which gives Radcliffe another opportunity to show his appreciation. I think this is a strong interview which allows fans to feel they are important and gives them the information they want. It is a good example of a radio interview as it is short and to the point, yet builds up atmosphere and uses words to create pictures.
Hard News
Hard news interviewers have to be very skilful. They need to be well informed about the topic they are covering. They need to be good listeners and able to strike a balance between getting answers to the questions that the audience are interested in, challenging and questioning as well as remaining even tempered. Hard news interviews are about current events and what is happening in the world. These could be human interest stories such as ebola, or 9/11, political stories like the budget or elections and sensational stories such as wars, crime, murders or riots. Hard news interviews can be factual and they can inform people or open debate.
In this interview David Cameron is on ‘Scotland Tonight’ before the Scottish referendum on whether Scotland wanted to leave the United Kingdom. The purpose of the interview is to let the people of Scotland hear from the Prime Minister before the election so they can be informed when they vote.
The interviewer uses an open question after expressing how she feels emotional after watching him grow up on screen. This is a nice touch and skilfully done as it would resonate with how others have seen him grow up and yet the interview stays focussed on Radcliffe and how he has developed. She has good communication skills, listens well and is good with words. ‘Where is Daniel Radcliffe weaving his magic now?’ This gives Radcliffe an opportunity to promote his current Broadway show and his new film. The interviewer winds up by returning back to the dedicated fans which gives Radcliffe another opportunity to show his appreciation. I think this is a strong interview which allows fans to feel they are important and gives them the information they want. It is a good example of a radio interview as it is short and to the point, yet builds up atmosphere and uses words to create pictures.
Hard News
Hard news interviewers have to be very skilful. They need to be well informed about the topic they are covering. They need to be good listeners and able to strike a balance between getting answers to the questions that the audience are interested in, challenging and questioning as well as remaining even tempered. Hard news interviews are about current events and what is happening in the world. These could be human interest stories such as ebola, or 9/11, political stories like the budget or elections and sensational stories such as wars, crime, murders or riots. Hard news interviews can be factual and they can inform people or open debate.
In this interview David Cameron is on ‘Scotland Tonight’ before the Scottish referendum on whether Scotland wanted to leave the United Kingdom. The purpose of the interview is to let the people of Scotland hear from the Prime Minister before the election so they can be informed when they vote.
John MacKay has structured the interview with a series of questions and themes that he feels are relevant to the people in Scotland which have probably been debated. He opens the interview with a hard hitting question about Cameron’s austerity government. He listens to Cameron and repeats or develops questions if he feels that Cameron hasn’t answered them sufficiently. Most of his questions are direct and open, giving the Prime Minister time to get his points across. Cameron answers the questions but uses the interview to keep focus on his main points that he wants to get across and repeats a few key phrases for maximum impact; ‘The United Kingdom is better with Scotland in’ ‘our family of nations’ and ‘we’re stronger together, we’re safer together and we are better off together.’
MacKay has a good balanced approach knowing when to keep putting his point across,(for example about devolution until he has a satisfactory answer) and knowing when to drop a topic (for example about publishing a poll to add to the debate).
The final question is a light question to wind up the interview and give Cameron an opportunity to put his final points across. It is about whether Cameron touches wood when the subject of the referendum comes up. This gives Cameron an opportunity to make his key points again and get his sound bites in. ‘I think the United Kingdom is better with Scotland in. We’re stronger together.’
These are examples of different styles of interviews and most of these are moving image. The Harry Potter video does say radio and is a good example of a radio interview where an atmosphere is portrayed with sound and using words to spark off imagination. Radio interviews have lots of different styles again depending on the audience, for example a radio one interview would have a different tone and content than a radio 4 interview because of the different audiences.
As well as broadcast interviews (TV and radio) there are also print interviews. Here is an example of one I found when I was researching the Paxman and Brand interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818743
It is an interesting interview as it gives Paxman’s personal opinions of Brand and the interview he did. It has a great introduction
‘Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman has admitted not voting at a recent election, despite criticising comedian Russell Brand for doing the same.’
which introduces the theme of the article and would be interesting to those who watched Paxman give Brand a lot of stick for not voting. The interview gives context explaining what happened in the interview and then gives Paxman a chance to say his piece. It is interesting that in the written interviews you don’t see the interviewer at work but you do see the result of the questions asked. The focus is very much on Paxman’s personal opinions of voting and the political system and he admits that the interview did change his mind on Brand which is interesting as you can kind of see that in his interview. The conclusion is strong and ends on a good note.
MacKay has a good balanced approach knowing when to keep putting his point across,(for example about devolution until he has a satisfactory answer) and knowing when to drop a topic (for example about publishing a poll to add to the debate).
The final question is a light question to wind up the interview and give Cameron an opportunity to put his final points across. It is about whether Cameron touches wood when the subject of the referendum comes up. This gives Cameron an opportunity to make his key points again and get his sound bites in. ‘I think the United Kingdom is better with Scotland in. We’re stronger together.’
These are examples of different styles of interviews and most of these are moving image. The Harry Potter video does say radio and is a good example of a radio interview where an atmosphere is portrayed with sound and using words to spark off imagination. Radio interviews have lots of different styles again depending on the audience, for example a radio one interview would have a different tone and content than a radio 4 interview because of the different audiences.
As well as broadcast interviews (TV and radio) there are also print interviews. Here is an example of one I found when I was researching the Paxman and Brand interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818743
It is an interesting interview as it gives Paxman’s personal opinions of Brand and the interview he did. It has a great introduction
‘Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman has admitted not voting at a recent election, despite criticising comedian Russell Brand for doing the same.’
which introduces the theme of the article and would be interesting to those who watched Paxman give Brand a lot of stick for not voting. The interview gives context explaining what happened in the interview and then gives Paxman a chance to say his piece. It is interesting that in the written interviews you don’t see the interviewer at work but you do see the result of the questions asked. The focus is very much on Paxman’s personal opinions of voting and the political system and he admits that the interview did change his mind on Brand which is interesting as you can kind of see that in his interview. The conclusion is strong and ends on a good note.