Quote:

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



Maybe you should go to Chris Hansen's (Dateline/To Catch a Predator) interview seminar.

Yes most interviewees are boring but it is the interviewers job to extract what is interesting about that person to show to the world. If the interviewee is boring and you don't get something work reporting, they why show it? It's like showing a half done movie or half ass complete one.

We can't show you anyone else's interview of porn whores that are watchworthing. That's why your audience comes to you because you are the last dying, near extinct, porn journalist. I'm calling you a porn journalist today but that may change to blogger. You are on a slippery slope because much of your content is extracted from user boards.