fshorr's blog

Interviewing is about more than simply asking questions. In a way, it’s like a game. It’s an art. The subject of interviewing is important because it is quite literally the basis of journalism. For this reason, it is important to become the best interviewer you can be.

You have to be prepared. You have to have questions ready that you want to ask (questions relevant for what you eventually want to write). But you also have to listen. You have to engage in a conversation and see where it leads you. You may hear something interesting that you were not expecting, in which case you will likely want to follow up. It seems like there is a delicate balance between listening to the person you are speaking to and anticipating your follow up questions. You should go in with questions you want to ask, but listen to your subject because you might find out something else that is interesting. You don’t want to be so focused on getting to ask your next question that you miss something unexpectedly enlightening. The Jozy Altidore interview is a perfect example of NOT listening. The reporter repeated multiple questions phrased with the idea that the first half was “frustrating” even though Alitdore stated quite clearly the first time that he did not think it went that poorly. A lot of good tips for interviewing were listed in an article you sent us the other day: 13 simple journalistic techniques.

Obviously preparation is crucial for a good interview, but I find the emphasis on relationship-building to be the most beneficial. In my limited experience, my best, most interesting conversations have come when I have been able to connect with my subject. You have to try to establish some sort of relationship or understanding with those you interview. Whether it be researching to find out information about them (i.e. their interests, recent news, a place or hobby you have in common) or simply being around every day. Showing up, will let the athletes and coaches see that you are making an active effort and want to be there. Try to go to everything. Say hello, but don’t always ask questions. Let them know that you are not always going to be asking them things, or trying to “get” things out of them. Also, saying thank you after you interview someone seems obvious to me (but as one of our guest speakers said) is not actually that common (but puts you in better favor).

Learning the intricacies of different personalities is paramount in understanding how to communicate with someone. One person you interview may joke a lot or thrive on sarcasm, for example, while someone else might become thrown off by it. Also, it is important to observe how (for example) the locker room functions. Don’t go with the pack mentality. If everyone is going one way to get a certain interview, go somewhere else. This will allow you to have a more meaningful conversation with another person.

Obviously being prepared is paramount, but you also really have to know how to effectively communicate and interact with different people. You can have the best questions in the world, but if you aren’t able to read people and talk to them, then you probably aren’t going to get very far.

Some people think the best reporters are the ones who ask the tough questions and the ones who make the people they’re interviewing shift in their seats as they struggle to come up a good answer. However, if that reporter is on a sports beat, making the athletes he or she covers shift in their seats over and over again might not be a good thing. Developing relationships in clubhouses and locker rooms is one of the most important parts to being a beat reporter, and it is tough to get players to want to talk to you if you make them uncomfortable every time you interview them.
That is one of the things that Arielle Aronson touched on in particular when she advised reporters to “try to make [interviews] as conversational as possible.” The best quotes do not come from an athlete who feels as if he is being attacked or interrogated. In fact, while the best reporters are not too “buddy buddy” with the athletes they cover, they are often rather friendly with them. This helps when it comes to actually getting the interview, as an athlete will turn down an interview with a reporter he feels is not being fair to him.
Mike Salk brought up Rob Bradford as one of the best in the business when it comes to interviewing because he always goes the other way than the crowd. He gets the one-on-one interview, which makes it much easier to be conversational than when you are interviewing someone in a crowd. Salk did not fully detail the intelligence of Bradford’s technique though, as Bradford is known to be very laid back when it comes to interviewing players. His demeanor is very relaxed, and he will sometimes start out with very comfortable conversation even before he gets into asking the question he is looking to have answered. This may not seem very important, but there is a noticeable difference in a player’s quotes when he is talking with a reporter he is friendly and familiar with than when he is talking with someone he does not know or trust. This gives a reporter a better chance to have “scoops” or interesting quotes. Getting injury information — especially during the playoffs — is no easy task, but Bradford had a conversation with Red Sox first baseman Mike Napoli that resulted in Napoli talking about a “stabbing in [his] foot.” http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/10/02/mike-napoli-ready-to-deal-with-stabbing-in-his-foot/. That’s not easy information to get, but more information is shared when a player is having a conversation with a reporter he trusts.
While covering the men’s hockey team here, I tried to incorporate some of the laid back, conversational style of interviewing that Bradford used into my interviews with Jack Parker. While Parker was generally friendly with most of the media, I worked at developing a relationship with him whenever the Daily Free Press had a sit-down interview with him. This meant not all of our questions were focused on necessarily breaking a big story, but we tried to get to know him and we were open to him getting to know us. Eventually he got more and more comfortable with us, and his quotes were gradually more and more interesting. With the level of trust higher, our jobs became easier.
This theme goes back to what we discussed with Baxter Holmes and Ben Volin, as the job is more and more about politics. If a reporter is fair in his criticism of a player, he or she will have a better relationship with the player and the public relations staff. Getting on people’s good sides is not a reporter’s job, but it often helps in regards to getting more information to report, which is a big help to a reporter trying to do his or her job.

Information gathered from interviewing is the meat of a journalists’ content, what separates it from remote bloggers, so it is no wonder we had a seminar dedicate to this — without strong interview skills, a journalist will absolutely flounder. And as we’ve learned over and over, the best way to get better at any part of journalism is in-the-field experience. Interviewing, however, is easier than most other aspects because what you read in a book can actually stick. Sarah Stuteville’s article (http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/13-simple-journalist-techniques-for-effective-interviews/) is a very good example of this, and even though the interview tips are far from groundbreaking, they serve as good reminders of how to conduct oneself while interviewing. I’ve already called on those while conducting interviews since I read the piece last week.

As others have noted, building relationships is key to getting good interviews. The more of a rapport you build up with a given coach or player — in part by simply being there consistently, as noted in the Baxter-Ben seminar a few weeks back — the more likely they will be to give you a couple of minutes or divulge information they won’t give to just anyone. But what if you are the newbie, or if you aren’t a beat writer and therefore cannot be their all of the time? You can still manage fine in terms of creating good content based on interviews (unless you’re covering the Patriots). You’re best off identifying and seeking out those who are — for lack of a better word — nice, or those you are down to Earth enough to look you in the eye and give you the thoughtful, intelligent answers good questions merit. In the Red Sox clubhouse, guys like Craig Breslow — a Yale grad who doesn’t stray away from actually thinking things through — Mike Carp and Jake Peavy come to mind as veterans who still care, or at least pretend to. Xander Bogaerts does too (particularly when he was in the minors), but who knows how long that will last. A lot of times that means speaking with who aren’t the superstars — aren’t the ones surrounded by the scrum — but impacted the game nonetheless, or players who may be able to relate to another player’s situation. If, for example, Shane Victorino, a switch-hitter, starts hitting exclusively from the right side but refuses to talk about why, it would be useful to talk to Jarrod Saltalamacchia, a fellow switch-hitter, about how hard of a transition that might be.

Along those lines, it is worth avoiding where the cameras go. When there is a camera in an athlete’s face, he’s more likely to clam up or be particularly wary of anything that can possibly be construed as controversial, which means being even more bland than normal. I have found this to be especially true with younger (read: college, high school) athletes who have little or no experience talking to media. David Ortiz, though he is obviously no rookie in dealing with media, is one who strikes me as playing it cool and calm on camera, but can snap off a couple of hilarious one-liners as soon as he steps away from the bright lights.

That could be why, as Nick pointed out (I suspect from experience), it is so hard to conduct insightful interviews on live radio. I hear Nick’s point about why Toucher and Rich’s gimmick with Rick Pitino was “kind of genius,” but to me that is not enough of a rationale. If the “interview” was an effort to drum up publicity, then it was a business decision — far from journalism.

Interviewing is the main part of the job for a journalist. Whether you work in radio, television, print, you will always have to interview your sources, and it is your job to ask the best questions to get the best answers. That is why having this seminar was essential. In a way, all the seminars in this class are about interviewing, because we listen to Professor Shorr asking questions to the guest speakers, and we have to understand why he asked those questions in pertinence to the subject.
In this particular seminar, what was important is learning about the experience of skilled journalists that have been in the position of an interviewer in the world of sports. It was valuable to have tips from professionals.
Interviewing is an art, but also something you have to work on throughout your career. Here are a few key points we learned from this seminar.

1. Preparation: always come in the locker room or into an interview prepared. In all the testimonies of the speakers, it has always been an essential point. Have a list of questions ready, always know where you are going to lead the interview. You have to know what you want them to say, and work on making them say it. Be also prepared to deviate from your original plan by knowing what good follow up questions to ask. Observe around you what is being said and don’t ask questions just for the sake of asking questions because situations like this might happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpJn5P6ECxQ. Sir Alex Ferguson is certainly not the easiest man to interview, but he has been facing journalists long enough to know when a question is really useless. Don’t be that guy.

2. Build relationships: athletes and other sports professionals have a hard time trusting the media. In order to get valuable information, you have to get to know them in a way that they can trust you and they need you as much as you need them. You have to be comfortable yourself, and the interviewed must also feel this comfort. An interview should not be mechanical but more like a conversation. That is why preparation is also very important. Try to learn something about the people you want to interview, a fact that is not always linked to sports and to what you actually want to ask them. Building relationships is essential because nowadays you want to be able to get exclusive stories, to be the first to break a news story, so you need that kind of relationship to achieve this goal. If the athlete, or coach, or else can trust you be fair in your judgment and honest, they will come to you first before other medias for interviews and exclusives.

3. Be professional: the locker room is where you work, so act like it. When you are a new journalist, do not be annoying. Show that you have a strong work ethic, be polite, listen to other journalists that already have some experience and learn from them. As we already heard in past seminar, if they see you often in the locker room and you keep an irreproachable attitude, they are going to notice it.
This seminar was important to sum up what we gather from other seminars, and other classes. The first experience in a professional situation is always going to be tense. It is your job as a journalist to make the interview as easy as possible for you and for the one who is answering your questions. During my internship in radio, I have seen the host interview very different athletes, from professional basketball players who were trained to answer questions to unknown archers for which it was the first time in front of a microphone. What impressed me the most was the way he adapted to the person that was facing him, always keeping a conversational tone, in order to make them say the most interesting things. Interviewing is a gift, some people are natural at it, some other have to work to be natural. Either way, even if you are a very natural talker, it does not exempt you of working on the questions, and on your subjects of studies to build relationships to have interviews of quality.

Interviewing is at the heart of sports journalism. It is a medium of interaction between the fans and the athlete. It facilitates the media personnel to get an insight into the player’s perspective of the game and then some. Having said that, in this day and age of quote-seeking, headline-hunting reporters, interviewing has become a dying art. This makes the need for effective interviewing skills all the more relevant and vital.

Tim Keon, in his article “Death of the interview” for ESPN, talks about how the modern-day press conferences have distanced the fans from the athletes. While good questions are few and far between, the flood of information lacks depth and context. The quarterbacks are treated as machines that have to satisfy the demands of the press. These group setting interviews deprive the public of real interaction, where everyone is in pursuit of their own separate agenda, with little or no link between the questions being asked.

In 2006, David Folkenflik did a story on ESPN’s John Sawatsky and how he was hired to preach the television network’s top journalists about properly conducting an interview. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5625218). Sawatsky went on to criticize the big-name reporters and their inability to ask good questions and extract information from their sources.

The quality of the interview is primarily dependent on the questions that are asked. This responsibility lies on the interviewer then, unless you are interviewing Bill Belichick of course, who in the words of Mike Salk, “decides how the interview is going to go.” It is important to effectively engage the person at the other end of the microphone in a meaningful conversation. Yes, it’s a conversation and not an interrogation, which is why ice breakers are so important. Finding a common ground with athletes and digging up interesting facts before hand, gives the interview a natural and smooth flow.

If anything, my belief about preparation amounting to half the job done, was only reinforced after this seminar. Salk mentioned how preparation ahead of time is a pre-requisite for interviewing and “nothing can be more important than that”. He went on to say: “Some of it is prep, some reaction, some follow-up. Listening is up there with preparation.” And surprisingly it is something most journalists do not make use of. Time and time again, we have seen sports talk shows and interviews where the host and the guest keep going back and forth with no avail. The simple reason being the interviewer’s inability to carefully listen and comprehend the answers sent his/her way.

It was interesting to hear the perspective of a young female reporter such as Arielle. Her experience inside a male locker room and how she was able to cope with different situations thrown her way covered a lot of unchartered territory for me, personally.

While sharing their inside tricks, the two stressed on some fundamental interviewing techniques. Some of those, like the one about open ended questions and the notorious “talk about”, are mentioned in the interview skills published by ESPN. And then there are those relationships and bonds you develop in advance, which supplement the interview process.

As for Fred Toucher’s shortest interview ever, it is instances like these that call for the dire need for better interviewing in sports.

Interviewing to me boils down to two things – preparation and making the guest comfortable. With preparation you need to have every piece of background info that you can on the subject, even things on a personal level so that you can relate to them. Being prepared will give you a better flow in the interview and make it easier with follow up questions. The athlete that’s being interviewed will respect the person interviewing much more if they seem knowledgeable. The other important part, making the guests comfortable, is essential because this will give you the opportunity for better quotes. If the guest is on edge and tough questions are being thrown at them, they’re going to clam up. If its a heavy interview, the interviewer should start with softer questions. It also seems like a good idea to make them laugh or talk about something not relevant to the interview to take their mind off it.

The other tips I learned from this seminar was to never crowd the star player in the locker room, you’re better off finding someone else. Also when the cameras aren’t on the player and they aren’t in front of tons of reporters, asking a quick question on the side could be your best quote.

Luckily for me I’ve gotten over being starstruck by athletes. Maybe its because I’ve met my fair share going to games and being classmates with future NHLers so I’m just used to it by now, so the intimidation factor won’t play a part if I get the chance to interview someone. Despite what people think athletes really are just like you and me. There are plenty of things I can do better than them, so to me it all evens out.

I haven’t had too much experience interviewing because I’ve been less of a reporter here and more of a host/analyst, but in the future I would love the chance to talk to more professional athletes. I’d like to think I’d ask questions that were more in depth than the fluffy garbage you hear on ESPN. This seminar was definitely a good preparation for that.

There are all kinds of different interviews in sports journalism, and we will likely be faced with most of them in the coming years. Whether it be a locker room scrum, a press conference or a one on one radio interview, the bottom line is that you have to be prepared and listen.

When listening to our guests last week, both Mike Salk and Arielle Aronson made reference to the fact that you have to know your stuff. In many cases, especially when we are just getting started, players and coaches are going to test us. If you react defensively, or if you get rattled, you can really set yourself back in the mind of the team. But if you come in ready, knowing your beat inside and out, then you are much less likely to hurt your credibility.

I have been lucky enough to be in a lot of professional locker rooms, covering both the Seattle Mariners and Seahawks. The advice that Mike Salk gave are words to live by for any young reporter, when he said that you need to observe the setting and watch the veterans before you start asking questions. If you go in to a locker room for the first time and start firing off question after question, you are going to not only catch the athletes and coaches off guard since they don’t know you, but you are going annoy your fellow journalists. The right to access is earned by putting in time, and one of the biggest mistakes a young reporter can make is stepping on the toes of the established guys.

That said, if you have a question that needs to be asked, and no one else is asking it, then by all means speak up. If asking too many questions early on is a way of losing the respect of your peers, asking well timed and thoughtful questions occasionally is how you gain their respect. While you need to follow the rules of the hierarchy, you have a press pass too, and you do have a right to participate.

Beyond preparation and listening, the next most important aspect of a successful interview is being conscious of the setting. There are questions that you can ask in a one on one radio interview that you could never get away with in a locker room, and vice versa. Having a goal and setting up your line of questions to attain that goal is vital in molding a successful interview. Whether the goal is entertain, or enlighten, or just get a quick quote, knowing what you want to do going in will make getting that goal accomplished a lot more likely.

As for Toucher and Rich’s “interview” with Rick Pitino, I feel like there are a few layers to the idea. First off, it was among the least professional acts I have seen from a radio host in a very long time. While it likely accomplished the immediate goal of being funny, and it no doubt appealed to many of the core members of their audience who feel similarly about Pitino, what goal did the interview achieve long term? Once all the clicks from Deadspin and Extra Mustard stop, where are they? Probably a lot less likely to get another big named guest to join the show. If I’m someone who those guys could possibly have an issue with, and they invite me on their show, I’m not going to join them. Secondly, it didn’t take any talent to do what they did. What would have been really engaging, and even potentially news worthy, would have been an interview with Pitino about his success since leaving Boston and questions about how he feels about his time here a decade removed. Maybe talk about what went wrong, and instead of telling him he “stinks” and that he ruined the Celtics, maybe ask him what it was like seeing Doc Rivers succeed where he was unable to? For me it was a cheap thrill, and I don’t think it took guts or toughness to act that way. I think it would have taken guts to ask him hard questions about his time here, and about how he is perceived in the city. Maybe he doesn’t answer the hard questions, but then he looks bad, not you. I thought it was a minor league move, and it’s something that I would never and will never do.

Interviewing is such an important part of journalism because without a good interview, you won’t be able to tell a great story. You can be the best writer in the world but without knowing what to ask, you won’t have much to tell.

Like Lisa mentioned above, almost of equal importance to interviewing is listening. An athlete doesn’t want to open up when dozens of cameras are being shoved in his or her face. If you can speak to a player one-on-one, chances are, you’ll get more personal answers. In our discussion last week, Arielle Aronson put it best when she said to make it feel like a conversation. If a reporter can do that in an interview, the athlete is more likely to let his guard down and provide details he might have stayed away from in a press conference when trying to pay careful attention to every word he’s putting out there. If a reporter can make a player feel comfortable, the story will ultimately be more interesting.

In interviewing, it’s also important to face awkward silences head on. In my own experience, some of the best information I was able to gather from sources came because I’ve learned when to stay quiet. Often times, the person I’m interviewing feels the need to fill that gap in conversation with more information. It’s amazing what you can discover simply by not interrupting someone.

In the ESPN article, “Death of the Interview,” (http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7319161/espn-death-sports-interview), Tim Keown talks about the distance between athletes and journalists that exists because of the press conference and rise of social media sites like Twitter. I don’t agree that the interview is dead. On the contrary, I think even though some reporters are getting by being lazy, what people really want to read is an article that tells them something new. I read the sports columns in The Boston Globe for the journalists and their track records for telling me something new. Rarely would I seek out a quote from a press conference because that typically tells me very little. Reporters aren’t going to find something new in a sound byte from a press conference either. When they’re going to find that truly interesting bit of information, such as when Mike Salk actually managed to get Bill Belichick to talk by bringing up Lawrence Taylor, is when the reporter has done his or her homework or when the journalist already has established a rapport with the subject. We wouldn’t tell a stranger we just met our deepest darkest secrets – why should we expect the players to do otherwise?

Franks Blog

Interviewing is more than just a means for getting information out of somebody. In order to really be effective, it takes a certain amount of talent. Interviewing is more of a skill, practice, or art when it comes to journalism. Especially when it comes to sports, where the stakes and emotions often run high, being a good interviewer is key in trying to be a good journalist.

I think Arielle and Mike both had very valuable things to say in regards to this subject. I was really impressed with Arielle’s presentation considering the short amount of time she has worked in the field. She really did have a lot of veteran advice coming from her rookie career. I think the most important thing that Arielle touched on is to keep an interview as conversational as possible. Especially in a locker room, you have to be careful with how you question somebody. It is important to consider that you are stepping into their territory. That is their locker, their space, their clubhouse, and you’re more than likely talking to them before or after their performance. For this reason, you have to handle your subject very carefully. If they lost, you have to be careful with how you approach them, how you question them, and what words you use within the interview. If you sound accusatory or combative, there is no way that they are going to give you as much information as they can. If you are respectful, cue in on their emotions, and question them in a way that they feel encouraged to answer, you’ll get much better answers out of them.

This brings me to another point that both of the featured guests spoke on. Set your interview apart from everybody else’s. Regardless if you are in a scrum and reaching your microphone over 15 other journalists, you want you article or piece to be different than what everyone else walks away with. Proper etiquette, as previously mentioned, is one way to do this. Another way that would be extremely effective would be what Arielle suggested; to wait until everyone else starts to wander off, then politely say, “Hey sorry, do you have another minute? You touched on XYZ and I would really like to elaborate on that a little bit.” And no matter what, especially if you are a beat or local reporter, thank your subject.

The interview done by the ESPN reporter with the USMNT’s Altidore (http://espnfc.com/video/espnfc/video?id=1522851&cc=5901) really shows an example of a bad interview. The camera person couldn’t pan away fast enough from the reporter, looking down at his notepad a second after his first question. The audience, along with the subject, could tell that the reporter was not at all listening or paying attention to his subject. First of all, this is a very rude thing to do as a reporter. The subject is taking time after his game to talk to you so they deserve eye contact and full attention. Secondly, you could tell that he wasn’t listening by the way he was forming his questions. He was completely ignoring the answers and turned away from opportunities to elaborate on important points that the player was making. When your subject gives you an avenue to explore, you have to take it, not be caught up too much in your next question to even notice. Thirdly, the interviewer was asking loaded questions. He was using words such as frustrating and disheartening. The subject’s response both times actually went against what the interviewer was insinuating. He got defensive and responded in the opposite direction of what the interviewer was going for. Asking “how did it feel when XYZ happened?” rather than “Wasn’t that frustrating when XYZ happened?” is much more effective. It was honestly pretty surprising that this guy was a reporter for ESPN because he really looked like he didn’t know what he was doing.

Without even needing to say much, the Toucher and Rich interview with Rick Pitino (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/10/03/toucher-rich-hang-up-on-rick-pitino-in-shortest-interview-ever/) doesn’t even deserve to be called an interview. It is unprofessional and unuseful to get a high-profile subject on the phone with you and then say “Hey you stink.” You ruin the interview and ruin your reputation or relationship with the subject, as well. However, if you’re going for sensationalism over legitimate journalism, then I guess this interview would work.

The importance of this seminar topic is crucial to journalism students who are about to enter the field. If we stay local or become beat reporters, the one time you disrespect a Red Sox player or ask a stupid question to an angry coach after a loss is the same moment that you begin to hurt your reputation as a journalist. You have to approach every interview with a level of respect, attention, awareness, and skill. Andrea Kremer, when speaking to our class, referred to every interview as a road. The subject is the car and the interviewer is the driver. The journalist controls the path that the interview takes, not the interviewee. As a journalist you have the power to keep them on the intended route or take “exit ramps” to other areas of the interview when you feel necessary. A professional and adequate level of skill will come with time, practice, and experience, but the advice that both Arielle and Mike gave us is beneficial to us kicking off our careers.