Interviewing tips

October 12, 2005 6:32 PM

Interview tips.

I recently began writing for a local paper, and have my first big interview on the horizon. I have little to none interviewing experience, so I'm wondering if you MeFites could offer up any dos/donts, tips, tricks, etc. My interviewee is a veteran at this sort of thing, so I'm nervous about making a novice blunder. I've already done mounds of research, so I'm (hopefully) covered there. Any other tips? (To be specific, the article is about a band and I'm interviewing the frontman.)

posted by Zosia Blue to writing & language (15 comments total)

The number one thing that will make you a better interviewer: Don't worry about whether you come across as smart or dumb. A know a lot of editors who say the biggest mistake novice reporters make when interviewing is trying to impress their sources. Worry about the information you're getting, not about the impression you're making.

Sometimes when you seem really dumb or clueless the person you're talking to will let their guard drop and say things they wouldn't say to a super-genious. Or they'll explain themselves in more general terms, which is easier for you to use in your article.

Meanwhile, when you are trying to come across as smart sometimes you will avoid asking "easy" questions that might actually give revealing answers.

What kind of story are you writing? Is it a feature or a news story? Is this a very locally oriented paper? Is there a local connection, with the band's frontman, or is he just passing through?
posted by croutonsupafreak at 6:54 PM on October 12, 2005

All I can say is do a better job than this guy did interviewing Margaret Atwood. Hmm...worthy of a FPP?
posted by furtive at 7:15 PM on October 12, 2005

I stumbled across this on craigslist. Its tips to applying for jobs on craiglist but the advice definitely can be applied to interviews as well. Don't act nervous, but it's okay to be nervous.
posted by pwally at 7:21 PM on October 12, 2005

I used to interview bands a lot. The number one thing I'd suggest in this particular instance is to do your homework so that you're not asking questions that have likely been asked a million times ("how long have you guys been playing together?" sort of thing) or are music writing cliches ("what are your influences?" "where do you see yourselves in 5 years?" "how did you come up with your band name" etc.). They're easy, and they're irritating.

Try to think of it more as a conversation between someone who likes music (you) and someone who makes music (him) -- e.g., "I hear an interesting mix of [artist A] and [artist B] in your latest work. Is that something you were consciously going for, or did it just come out that way in the studio?" But as croutonsupafreak says, don't try to come up with references/questions/etc. just to impress him with your musical knowledge; instead, just reflect conversationally on your own thoughts of their work, current tour (if applicable), etc.

if you do take this conversational approach, be very careful that you don't actually talk too much (out of nervousness or just from forgetting that it's actually an interview) -- you want to say just enough to engage him verbally so that he still does most of the talking.
posted by scody at 7:37 PM on October 12, 2005

A couple of things:

* always ask open questions -- "how long have you guys been together?" is not only a trite question, but one that can be answered with "a year". "Tell me about how you guys got together" is much better.

* Similarly, if the press release says "they recorded their album in Albania", don't say "so you recorded your album in Albania", say "tell me about recording the album". It's better for them to say "actually, we recorded it in Albania" than it is for that information to come from you. Although it's your job to know that kind of stuff, the intended audience might not.

* if you're recording it, make sure you give them an expendable question at the start, like "what did you have for breakfast" so you can check levels, they can get used to the mic, and so on.

* I sometimes ask people "what's the question you're sick of being asked?" which kind of gets you the answer to "tell me how you got your name?" without actually asking it, and may make them laugh and loosen up

* whatever you do, listen to the answers and be part of the conversation -- the one really dumb beginner's mistake is to be looking at your notes thinking "OK he's talking now, I'll check the next question: 'tell me about recording your album in Albania', OK, got it" while the interviewee is saying "so, after our first drummer killed and ate his parole officer..."
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:50 PM on October 12, 2005

These are great tips so far, thank you. I especially like the "what questions are you sick of answering?" I tend to gravitate towards questions like that. I'm naturally fascinated by people's stories, but I am worried about being too nervous and sounding too stiff or unfunny (I have a tendency to make horrible jokes when nervous).

Crouton -- It's a short piece (900 or so words) with a new band made up of members from several different locally established bands. They have a show coming up, so it's more of a brief article to promote the show. The frontman is local, and the paper is primarily locally-oriented, as well.
posted by Zosia Blue at 8:14 PM on October 12, 2005

My biggest piece of advice is to get a voice recorders if you don't already have one. As someone mentioned upthread, taking notes is way too cumbersome and takes you out of the converstation. In something as open-ended as a music interview, you want to be flexible so awareness is key. Really listen to your subject...you never know what kind of leads they'll give you by what they say. Don't be afraid to deviate from your prepared questions.

And have fun!
posted by amandaudoff at 9:21 PM on October 12, 2005

Hi Zosia,

Here are a few old journalist tricks.

- "Tell me about" is one of a few magic phrases that puts people at ease in getting them to tell stories, when more specific queries might not. (variant: "Tell me about a time when...")

- If there's an uncomfortable pause, let it last just long enough to see if they add anything else, rather than rushing to fill the silence. (That's actually a lawyer trick)

- I second the bit about not being afraid to sound dumb. Ideally you want answers that are in the plainest possible English, and this helps.
posted by johngoren at 11:00 PM on October 12, 2005

Yeah, let them sit with their answers for a minute before moving on to the next question. It might seem odd but a lot of the time they add something.
posted by Hall at 4:55 AM on October 13, 2005

For any interview: try to find a storyline (an arc) before you go to the interview, and divide it into "chapters".

Mostly, you move from the actual to the more personal. Like for your interview tomorrow: you can start with a few questions about the concert you're announcing, move on to the fact that they're composed from the other bands (and what they thought of their colleagues' bands before they played together), and then move on to some more personal questions about who they are and why they want to be on a stage so badly (I wouldn't advise phrasing it like that). Mix with a couple of goofy questions (not too many, please) et voila, 900 words.

You should start with the chapterisation, because your chapters will determine the "angle" of your interview (profile, testimonial,...) and they will make it easier to decide where your questions will come in the interview. Otherwise it gets muddy and you'll get lost in your own interview, and it's a lot easier to type out. Believe me, it's nearly impossible to take an interview apart and try to put it back together in a different chronological order - it can take hours or days when it's an interview that dragged on for a few hours, and the results are usually poor.

Also: it's okay if the chapters are clearly delineated, your readers will not notice. The most painful interviews are the ones that stick with one subject too long, because there's only so many interesting questions you can ask about one subject, and your interviewees will get tired and bored. Changing the subject - even just shifting from "questions about songs" to "questions about guitars" to "questions about life on the road" - help your interviewees to sit up again: "aha, something new!"

The most helpful piece of info on writing I ever got was: "End with a climax". Whether emotional or otherwise, you should end with a zinger. Move a question to the end if you need when typing it out, you can always add "Last question:" to set it up if it's too brusque.
posted by NekulturnY at 5:14 AM on October 13, 2005

The biggest problem I have in interviewing people is the one crouton mentioned: trying to impress them with my intellect and all around coolth. I have found a technique, that works when I remember it (but the impulse to impress is often too strong): assume an alternate identity. Don't go in there as yourself, go in there as Intrepid Girl Reporter. That way, you can ask the dumb sounding questions you sometimes need to ask to elicit the right quote. (eg, you know perfectly well how the band got together but you need to ask it anyway to get a quote about it.)

Also, have a list of questions written down in case you freeze, but that's just an emergency backup - try to make it more conversational and as Ambrose said, ALWAYS LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWERS. Key your next question off the previous answer if you can, instead of going down a checklist. But have the checklist, even just a mental one, to make sure you don't forget something obvious. Conversational interviews generally end up somewhere far more interesting than checklist interviews.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:44 AM on October 13, 2005

I always try to fight my conversational instincts. Like, I'll be interviewing somebody, and they'll say something that in a normal conversation would lead me to say," Oh yeah, that reminds me of the time I was driving a van full of ocelots across the Mexican border, and..." Ideally, I want them talking almost all of the time, which means quashing a lot of conversation on my end.

Don't be nervous; they're at least as nervous as you are. If you're interviewing a band, they have more to gain from the coverage than you do, which puts the balance of power on your side.

This is dumb, but if I'm interviewing more than one person, I always ask everyone to say their name at the start of the interview so that, when transcribing, I have a reference in case I lose track of whose voice is whose.

And transcribe the tape as soon as you can. Transcribing sucks, and it's easy to put it off if you don't jump on it.

Congratulations!
posted by COBRA! at 7:39 AM on October 13, 2005

A suggestion for after the interview - if your local paper doesn't object, provide the interviewees with a draft of your article, and ask them for any suggested corrections. You do need to make it clear that they don't have veto power (the term "suggested" is critical here), and that the purpose of the review is to make sure your facts are correct (hence "corrections").

They're going to read it anyway; letting them see a draft makes sure that the dumb mistakes are caught. And if they suggest wording changes that aren't really corrections, tell them you'll "consider" the suggestions; do consider them; and then do whatever you think is best. (And no, they don't get a second shot at the draft, and yes, they should be given only a day or so to get back to you, since you have a deadline.)

I've been interviewed myself, at least three times that I can remember. For one article, I was offered a chance to preview the copy. The other two (admittedly in student newspapers) were filled with atrocious errors (not negative things, just dumb mistakes and misunderstandings) that I would have been happy to correct without getting into any arguments with the writers about point of view or other subjective things.
posted by WestCoaster at 10:03 AM on October 13, 2005

Showing an interview subject the draft of your article is one of the dumbest things you can do. Yeah, fact-check all you want. But there are two big reasons NOT to show your draft to the subject:
1. You're writing for your readers, not the interview subject. Giving your subject an opportunity to "correct" your own observations from an interview is patently unfair to your readers. What would you think if, say, the Washpost ran all its articles past Karl Rove just to make sure they got it "right."
2. It's an f-ing pain in the ass. I promise, do this once, and you will never do it again. Among other things, if you don't make a change suggested by your subject, you will never hear the end of it.
The ONLY exception I might make to this rule is for an obit.
Couple other things:
-Tape recorders are a pain in the ass; they double the amount of time it takes to write. Keep good notes instead, focusing on facts. Listen for two good quotes, that's all you need for a story, unless we're talking a lengthy takeout or magazine feature (or unless you're interviewing John Chaney, who is the absolute best quote machine I've ever interviewed).
-The best interviews are conducted in a bar. Even if your subject doesn't loosen up, you get to expense the meet.
-That "sick of" question is also dumb -- take it from someone who heard that question asked no fewer than 15 times at the last Super Bowl. I think I heard Rodney Harrison say, "I'm sick of being asked that stupid question."
posted by sixpack at 11:37 AM on October 13, 2005

Yeah, sixpack is right. You can read a quote back if you're not sure whether you got it right, but for the most part you're crossing over into PR land if you let them screen the article.
posted by johngoren at 6:07 PM on October 13, 2005