|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
|
what do you think of alec baldwin's style? (example: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/jun/10/ ). It strikes me as a counterexample. He steers pretty strongly but his interviews are very interesting, if you have any desire to listen to the subject in question.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Haji is hot for the Russian woman, imo.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On July 23 2013 10:36 Xxio wrote:
Haji is hot for the Russian woman, imo.
will not deny that she is an attractive instance of the female specimen.
|
On July 23 2013 10:36 Xxio wrote:
Haji is hot for the Russian woman, imo.
My suspicions align with yours!
Actually the first interviewer got on my nerves from just his introduction. I skipped ahead a little later and found the interviewer cutting off his guest... Stopped listening right there.
|
Is it already time for the: What´s her name?
|
How about interviewers that inject comedy i.e. what's good and bad interviewers when they're injecting trolling a la Hot Bid?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On July 23 2013 16:11 Danglars wrote:
How about interviewers that inject comedy i.e. what's good and bad interviewers when they're injecting trolling a la Hot Bid?
I think that qualifies for the exception, since we as viewers are looking forward to Hotbid trolling.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On July 23 2013 16:08 Daswollvieh wrote:
Is it already time for the: What´s her name?
from the comments in the YT video, Abby Martin. Clearly this blog would be rated higher if the YT previews showed her instead of two middle aged, bearded, overweight, hairy (but brilliant) men! 
|
On July 23 2013 16:26 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 16:08 Daswollvieh wrote:
Is it already time for the: What´s her name? from the comments in the YT video, Abby Martin. Clearly this blog would be rated higher if the YT previews showed her instead of two middle aged, bearded, overweight, hairy (but brilliant) men!
I´m sure she is brilliant in her own way. 
Enough derail. I find the OP valid and would add for SC2: I know, it´s easy as an interviewer to feel like the big cheese. You get the camera set-up, you ask the questions, you got the routine, but it´s not about you. Your job is not to outshine the interviewee, but to put a spotlight on him, in a way that gets the best interview. Stop making your interviewees look awkward! Make them comfortable! When you interview a 16 year old Korean kid, who never left his home town and is kinda shy, don´t be happy that you look good next to him, or make jokes he cannot understand, and please, don´t make them speak English, when they can´t in front of a huge crowd. Think about how to make them comfortable, because they matter, not you! Please.
|
Thanks for posting something about Richard Stallman.
|
I saw that Richard Stalllman interview a while ago and was disgusted by how idiotic the interviewer was. He seemed incapable of listening to Stallman, and was almost making fun of his guest. Stalllman did a good job of not getting angry with the interviewer and confronting him.
I think that the most important aspect of an interview is that the host is listening to the interviewee and actively engaging in a meaningful conversation (which can be hard to do).
|
ill take a look at the videos you posted later today, but definitely agree about what makes for a good interviewer and for exceptions to that rule. I think people like Jon Stewart and Colbert are other examples of that exception. those guys are entertainment first. that's generally when you want that type of active interviewer. news shows, even opinion, you want the person who gives questions meant to stimulate further discussion based on where the conversation is at that moment.
|
ill have to check out your example videos later, but I do agree with the most part. Good read.
I wanted to add food for thought, but then I wanted to get context before blabbing. Exactly which situations moved you to make this post? interviews AT esports events by the organizer? esports interviewers that visit live events/players? interview podcasts? interviewers in general regardless or games/esports?
I'd like to know before I add to the discussion!
|
The interviewer in the Richard Stallman interview wasn't even really listening to what he had to say. He also was just waiting for his own time to speak, always waiting for his chance to put his original spin on it, the same spin that Richard Stallman had already declared as a false view.
Really smart people being interviewed in both cases. Really gave a slightly different perspective, while echoing my own in many senses.
|
On July 23 2013 22:22 QuanticHawk wrote:
ill take a look at the videos you posted later today, but definitely agree about what makes for a good interviewer and for exceptions to that rule. I think people like Jon Stewart and Colbert are other examples of that exception. those guys are entertainment first. that's generally when you want that type of active interviewer. news shows, even opinion, you want the person who gives questions meant to stimulate further discussion based on where the conversation is at that moment.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I was perusing the comments. I consider Jon Stewart a quality interviewer, and he does steer the conversation in most interviews; however, I think most of that is due to time constraints. But, what really makes him great (as someone pointed out above), is that he is actually just having a conversation with the interviewee. You can tell he is actually listening to the interviewee, and he asks intelligent questions back. It gives the interview a more complete feel.
I'm not clear on the OP's intent. Was it simply to say people on TV/radio need to get their act together, or were you eluding to (without saying it) interviews at tournament main stages? You know, the awkward ones (not Hot_Bid) that are painful to watch and get the stream muted temporarily. You know, all of them... I don't know who's more to blame, the players for their answers or the interviewers with their aloofness. It's certainly fixable, but it's been going on for so long with little improvement. I wish I knew how they could fix it so I could suggest something actually helpful. =(
|
Interviewers need to get out of the way. Except for Smix.
|
Terry Gross is still the master, and George Strombolopolous is no slouch either.
|
I hadn't seen these interviews before, but they were really interesting watch. I must admit I was very aggravated by the comportment of Stallman's interviewer. What distracted me the most was how the interviewer's tone was almost the opposite of Stallman's.
In an unrelated note, Stallman said during his interview, "It's a mistake to use the word 'hacker' to mean breaking computer security. I call that cracking, and the people who do it are crackers." My immediate thought was "wow that's racist"
|
On July 24 2013 01:08 Chobra wrote:
ill have to check out your example videos later, but I do agree with the most part. Good read.
I wanted to add food for thought, but then I wanted to get context before blabbing. Exactly which situations moved you to make this post? interviews AT esports events by the organizer? esports interviewers that visit live events/players? interview podcasts? interviewers in general regardless or games/esports?
I'd like to know before I add to the discussion!
There are very few guys in the industry who know what they are doing; after all, most of them are just amateurs. Heck, it used to be a lot worse in the Brood War days (websites would always follow the same template when it came to the foreigners anyway). Same thing applies to all the wannabe journalists. I hate generalizing. >_< Look it's not all bad. There are a few guys who do a bang up job and you got to have your own style. Follow up questions are the basic fundamentals. I would try to avoid the same questions as much as possible. If your working an angle to get a good story (like pre-game/post game interviews go for it, but try to switch up the questions to get rid of the redundancy). I'll speak for myself, I've seen plenty of podcasts (for example JP's real talk) where they have a generic template for setting up the interview. Nothing wrong with having bullet points, but try to make sure there's a natural flow to the conversation. Keep it fresh. I'd say I see it everywhere. It's not so much of a problem for you Chobra so I wouldn't be too concerned. I've seen your LoL stuff on OGN and you did an exceptional job at the WCS Finals.
|
i saw this one interview where the interviewer asked the same question twice
|
I think a good interviewer needs a quick wit and sense of timing as well. Conan O Brian is great at bringing the best out of his guests, and making jokes but still saving face for them (contrast to David Letterman).
|
I thought this was a slight dig at Hot_Bid.
5/5 would read again :D
|
Stallman's interview was pretty funnily done. At one point he's making a point about "extreme capitalism" and makes a reference to oil companies. 5 seconds later there's a caption saying "Stallman: fossil fuel companies driving us to diasaster". And then the part where the interviewer says that by having a computer means that you must be hooked on proprietary software, the look on Stallman's face is just priceless. That said, I don't necessarily think there is a problem with an interviewer being active or disagreeing or even speaking over the person they're interviewing. That interviewer simply didn't know what he was talking about and was holding onto his preconceptions despite being told otherwise by one of THE figures of the modern computing experience. Assuming the point of an interview is to directly show the mindset of one person to many, using the interviewer as a foil seems like a reasonable approach.
|
While I agree for the most part that interviewers' personalities shouldnt get in the way of the interviewee, there are some exceptions, which I feel deserve a mention. I do not agree with the view that it must be always right to let the interviewee be completely on the loose.
As an example I will bring up Maurice de Wilde, a belgian reporter. As examples, to counter the OP, I will use the interview of Leon Degrelle. I will give a brief explanation of what goes on in this interview, because I am not sure there will be english translations available.
A small fragment of the interview, for those who speak either French of Dutch : http://www.vrt.be/tijdslijn/de-nieuwe-orde
In this example I'd like to illustrate how an overwhelming personality of the interviewee can make for a propaganda speech, but how the interviewer can possibly rectify this by 'fighting back' so to speak. The interviewer can also, by using albeit 'sneaky tricks', force the interviewee into a situation where he or she will say more than actually intended, and end up confessing their own guilt, albeit unwillingly.
Degrelle was a collaborator in WWII, that had fled to spain. There had been interviews with Degrelle before, however they would often come over as some kind of propaganda speech : The interviewee would have such an overwhelming personality that his views would be imposed on the interview too much. Maurice however did not allow this, and made sure he got Degrelle to say what he wanted him to say by bringing evidence to the interview he had not mentioned before going into the interview. He brought papers proving Degrelle's wrongdoings. Once Degrelle was in the interview, all of the sudden confronted with said evidence, he had no way of getting out of it anymore.
So, in conclusion : I do not agree that a strong personality is always bad for the interview as a whole. I believe the case I brought up suffices to show that different kinds of interviews exist, and that for each situation, we should pick the right kind of interview. We could say that there are 'soft interviews' and 'hard interviews', both having advantages and disadvantages.
If we want, for example, extraction of information from a person that might not be so willing to share with us the truth, but only wishes to spread his or her own lies, then interviews of the second sort would do us much more good than the kind of interviews you have given as examples in the OP.
Let me just say that the way Maurice did things are frowned upon today. Nonetheless, I believe my point still comes across.
|
I could not listen to the whole first interview. To be honest, I lasted a few minutes before the interviewer just became too annoying. All the "mhm"s every few goddamn seconds are grating to say the least.
I liked the second one way more. She just let him talk and built on what he said previously.
|
Howard Stern is/was actually a great, underrated interviewer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
