I don't think my ratio of good interviews to bad interviews has changed. In my estimation, about one in four interviews I do is a good one. Of late, I've interviewed a lot of boring people. Most people, most porners, are simply not interesting, though I find porners about the most interesting of any group. They are far more interesting than politicians and athletes. I remember interviewing Senator Alan Cranston and others between 1985-87. I also covered the San Francisco 49ers and the Sacramento Kings for KAHI/KHYL radio news.

Regarding my dull interviews of late: Please show me other interviews with these same people that are more interesting. I doubt you'll find any. I don't think the problem is with the interviewer. It's with the interviewee. Most people are boring.

Regarding interviewing technique: Asking confrontational questions rarely results in interesting answers. Putting a value statement in your question doesn't work. It may make the interviewer (Mike Wallace etc) look like a tough guy but it does nothing for the person reading/watching the interview. There's a protocol to interviewing just as there is to taking a medical history.

http://www.lukeford.net/essays/contents/interviewing.htm