CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric was honored last week with the Alfred I. duPont award for her much-discussed interviews with Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign. At the time the interviews aired, I was absolutely hyped up about them; I monologued to many a friend about how impressed I was with Couric. She knew just when to push and when to pull back; she didn't revel in a "gotcha" moment, but rather, she gave Palin space to reveal herself. She was fair, polite, and never pandering. I remember telling a friend of mine that I learned how to be a better interviewer just by watching her. And indeed, as Gwen Ifill noted at the awards ceremony, Couric provoked some of the most revealing remarks of the presidential election.
So I'm thrilled to see Couric honored for how she handled her conversations with the then-vice presidential candidate. What's more, the moment cues an opportunity for Couric to speak plainly about the craft of the journalist.
From her remarks upon accepting the award:
... The much derided MSM -- main stream media -- clearly still has a role in these increasingly partisan times. Had I been a journalist who unabashedly expresses his or her political point of view, be it on the left or the right, I believe the impact of these interviews would have been seriously diminished.
In a time when people are taking the trend of new media as an excuse to replace commentary with straight reporting, this is a fascinating point. Because Couric's right: if Palin had been interviewed by, say, Amy Goodman or Glenn Beck, even if the transcript were identical, the conversation really wouldn't have been as significant. This, despite whatever human subjectivity that influences media organizations that fight against the current these days in attempting to present objective journalism. This, despite whatever biases that people of all political stripes apply to the mainstream media.
The point is, the effort behind straight reporting, sans commentary or apparent political affiliation, still has worth. In fact, it has no equal. And I fear that in our rapid, chaotic media paradigm shift, we will lose it. Unless we start valuing its unique impact and purpose. Unless we name it, as Couric has.
Couric further discusses the interviews with Mallary Jean Tenore at the Poynter Institute. She returns to the point about objective journalism:
Increasingly people want coverage that has a POV. They want to go to a Web site like Huffington Post or they may want to go to "The Corner," the National Review blog. I think people do want to hear from like-minded individuals who may share their point of view.
On the other hand, I think that it's really important that there's a place for really objective journalism that's not necessarily advocacy journalism. Because I think the way you learn, the way I learn about all different sides is by going to different Web sites that have different viewpoints. And if you only go to those who you agree with, then your own views are reflected back at you, and you don't have a chance to even understand the other point of view and engage in an intelligent dialogue that's civil.
In some ways, people become more firmly entrenched when they just watch media that reflects their points of view. But I do think people want that. I hope they balance it out with other things and they see what other people may be saying about an issue because otherwise it makes civil discourse an oxymoron.
She also discusses the journalism craft that went into the Palin interviews. I continue to learn from her; her remarks are worth quoting at length:
I think the things that were validated for me included the importance of massive preparation. When you're interviewing someone, particularly who hasn't done a lot of interviews, I think it's really critical that you have a clear understanding of his or her record. ...
I also relearned the importance of follow-up questions, which I think were critical in this setting but are really critical in any interview. And I'm often frustrated when I watch interviews and I feel as if (a) the person didn't listen to the answer or (b) didn't pick up on something or (c) moved on even though they were given a non-answer answer.
I think that that's something that is really an important practice that journalists need to be mindful of today, because oftentimes you're dealing with a lot of things. You've got time constraints, and you may need to get to a lot of different areas but sometimes it's worth really diving in when someone is trying to avoid answering a question.
I would say preparation and follow-up were key components of that interview, and I also think tone. When I started in television and really started doing interviews in earnest, I remember Jeff Zucker and I used to talk a lot about tone. And I think it's really important because it has a major impact on how an interview is received.If you're too confrontational, and there are times when you need to be confrontational, sometimes the attention is then focused on you rather than the interview subject. Ideally, in 100 percent of the situations it really is about the person you're interviewing, or should be.
Sometimes journalists make the mistake of having a certain tone or conducting the interview in a certain way that it draws attention away from the subject and on to the interviewer herself or himself.
My tone was really important because I think it was respectful but politely persistent. And that's really what you want to do when you're interviewing someone, unless it's someone like David Duke whose views are so abhorrent to the vast majority of American people.
And I change my tone if I'm interviewing somebody who obviously is an accident victim. I do more political figures in my current job but I always try to have the right tone from the get-go of the interview. And I think that is a really important quality when you're doing this kind of work.
Image Credit: CBS Evening News
Comments