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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
So interviews are a valuable tool, but under certain circumstances they'd be more valuable than others.
People are not impressed by watching interviewees cry. People recognize chat shows with personalities as the trivial things that they are. They're not designed to be deep. Quite frankly, people in show business don't stand up to in-depth scrutiny.
We are the recorders and reporters of facts - not the judges of the behaviors we describe.
The audience is the best judge of anything. They cannot be lied to. Truth brings them closer. A moment that lags - they're gonna cough.
I think anyone doing an interview is to some extent on show. And therefore, we always want to put on our best face.
You never really meet a human being until you live with them or know them for awhile, so this is my clown and they understand that and so these interviews don't bother them.
Sometimes it's like watching a train wreck. You're uncomfortable, but you just can't help yourself. Some of those so-called bad interviews actually turned into compelling television.
For me, the main principle for broadcasters has to be that if people stand to benefit from an interview, they should be prepared to face some downside as well.
Every reporter inhales skepticism. You interview people, and they lie. You face public figures, diligently making notes or taping what is said, and they perform their interviews to fit a calculated script. The truth, alas, is always elusive.
Reporters have to use their imagination, really put themselves in the shoes of the person they want to interview.