Here we have a situation where a defendant in a case agrees to an interview with Dan Rather. It happened to be not confidential. But it was an interview with Dan Rather.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's the interviewee's job to know that his privacy is going to be invaded on some level. Otherwise, you are better off not doing the interview.
I would rather not have contentious interviews. I'd rather do 30 minutes with Charlie Rose, laid back in a La-Z-Boy chair.
The long, forensic interview really matters.
It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.
I have a hard time with interviews, because I'd rather hear about the interviewer.
CBS fought very hard on this because it believed and believes that there's a principle at stake here. The principle is that Dan Rather doesn't work for the police, and that people that speak to Dan Rather understand that he's a journalist and not a police agent.
You've gotta understand - when you interview someone, it's not an interrogation. It's not the Nuremberg Trials.
I think an interview, properly considered, should be an investigation. You shouldn't know what the interview will yield. Otherwise, why do it at all?
It must be quite rare for an interviewer to be interviewed.
Interviews, and hence interviewers, are there to help shed light, and to let viewers judge for themselves. We are not judges, juries, commentators or torturers - nor friends, either.