The first rule of on-camera interviews: "casting, casting, casting." That bit of advice — from Mary Miller, a writer, producer and webhost at The Exploratorium in San Francisco — was one of several suggestions offered to the audience at "The Art of the Interview — Extreme Edition," organized and moderated by freelance science journalist, Jill U. Adams, at ScienceWriters 2009 in Austin, Texas.
The first rule of on-camera interviews: "casting, casting, casting."
That bit of advice — from Mary Miller, a writer, producer and webhost at The Exploratorium in San Francisco — was one of several suggestions offered to the audience at "The Art of the Interview — Extreme Edition," organized and moderated by freelance science journalist, Jill U. Adams, at ScienceWriters 2009 in Austin, Texas.
For Miller, good casting meant that the single question — "tell me why I should care about ice?" — produced a lively and engaging monologue by Penn State University glaciologist Richard Alley, perfect for the web video (Quicktime) (Windows Media Player) she was putting together.
Miller chose Alley carefully; she had heard his talks and radio interviews and knew he was a well-known expert in his field. But she also did a pre-interview, a chance to prep the scientist and test him out at the same time.
For would-be video interviewers, Miller offered advice ranging from the sartorial ("bright colors--good, stripes/white--bad") to the editorial ("no jargon please, editor cannot paraphrase") to the practical ("smile, nod, but don't interrupt"). She also provided what she called her "Four-question interview formula (patent pending)" — "where are we? (sense of place)," "what's happening here? (process)," "why should we care? (bigger picture)," and "what does it mean? (emotion, future)."
Robert Frederick, another session panelist and a podcaster and journalist for Science magazine, discussed how his interview process has morphed over the years, from trying to convince subjects to talk to him when he worked with a small NPR station in Colorado, to trying to put his subjects at ease now that he works with Science.
At his old job, he used to do what he called "backwards" interviews — asking "very detailed" initial questions to get the researcher excited and then letting them talk. Now he does "forward interviews," which he prepares for by building a question "tree" to guide the discussion. To build the tree, Frederick considers all possible answers to each question he wants to ask, as well as appropriate follow-up questions. If the subject says something unexpected, he added, he pauses (those can be removed in editing), thinks up a new question, and then works back to the tree.
Frederick often kicks the discussion off with a simple question to put the subject at ease: If we were on an elevator and you had to tell me what your work was about before we reached our floor, what would you say? "I usually cut that question, and the interview goes from there," he said. Or, if the interview starts to drag, he tries to inject some emotion. In one case, he said, "I decided, how do you make a paleoanthropologist angry? Ask about the 'missing link'."
Douglas Fox, a panelist and freelance science and environmental journalist, talked about his work as an "embedded" journalist in Antarctica in 2007. Spending seven isolated weeks with three researchers in that frozen land, Fox says, it was critical — but difficult — to maintain his distance and detachment. Tension was inevitable. "You can't help but be sucked into what's going on around you," he said.
At the same time, he stressed that his job was not to be a member of the research team, but an observer. "Their worst moments [will be] your best," he said. At such times — assembling equipment in the middle of a white-out, say — "it's the most important time to remain detached, to watch and record them and get every little detail. It can be pretty awkward, but it's really important and I try to set this expectation ahead of time."
Another issue Fox cited was figuring out how much to "share" with his subjects. "You're trying not to be their friend, but at the same time you're asking about their childhood," he said. "Sometimes, in the interest of disappearing, it's necessary to share a little bit."
Robin Marantz Henig, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine who also took part in the panel, talked about squeezing information from subjects who either don't want to share it, or who may have forgotten they ever knew it.
For one story Henig extracted critical details about a 30-year-old legal matter by using what she calls "the slo-mo interview" — interrupting the subject with questions like, "what were you wearing?" or "what was the weather like?" "Sometimes that will draw out more accurate memories," she said.
During the closing panel discussion Rosie Mestel, deputy science and health editor for the Los Angeles Times, commented on two of the biggest mistakes she's seen from writers: trying to impress the source with your knowledge and "knowing when to shut up" and let the subject finish his or her thoughts.
Finally, the speakers chimed in on strategies to revive a flagging interview. "Sometimes you just have to say, 'I'm sorry, I'm just falling asleep here'," said Frederick, adding: "Where did the passion go?" Often, he said, if "you ask a question in a certain way, you'll get it back the same way." Added Miller, "it's about being a director. You're not just translating, you're directing your subject on how to provide the information."
Jeffrey Perkel was an NASW Freelance Travel Fellow at ScienceWriters 2009. He lives in Pocatello, Idaho, and writes for such clients as Science, The Scientist, the American Chemical Society and HealthDay News.
.png)
