I think the interview form works best on the radio. There are a lot of personality traits conveyed in a person's voice, the rhythm of their speech or how confident they sound.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
I think one of the reasons that I got so good at it, as somebody making radio stories, is that on the radio I can actually - I can understand what's happening in the interview and can make a connection in a way that makes sense.
I like radio because you can do an hour-long interview and then three days later have a finished piece.
I do have a bit of a gravelly voice; people have told me I've got a good voice for radio.
I think anyone doing an interview is to some extent on show. And therefore, we always want to put on our best face.
This is the first lesson for writers - or anyone - who conducts interviews: If you want someone to talk, you've got to know how to listen. And good listening is a surprisingly active process. The interviewee is your focus of attention; you are there to hear what he says and thinks, exclusively.
I think good radio often uses the techniques of fiction: characters, scenes, a big urgent emotional question. And as in the best fiction, tone counts for a lot. But a lot of effective and interesting radio is based on one character who reacts to the world.
Radio voices have a solid, even texture.
I once did a three-hour interview with Radio Oxford only to be told the microphone hadn't picked me up.
So interviews are a valuable tool, but under certain circumstances they'd be more valuable than others.
No opposing quotes found.