TV Journalists are persnickety about being the only interviewer in the room at a given time. Why is that?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd think that it'd be difficult to conduct any interview in anything other than a 1 on 1 setting, wouldn't you?
Edit--I think that I'm a little unclear on what you mean. Can you elaborate?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Another lifetime ago, I was being interviewed and I didn't want to do two interviews, and I said, "Why don't we just do it at the same time." The two reporter women shot me a look like I was crazy, and then looked at each other with murder in their eyes.
Now I'm working on a story about a similar situation, but I need to know why it matters so much that the interview be 1 on 1. Tom, Kasie, you know something that I don't? They were both so immediately mad/disappointed that I figure that there is something at stake that I'm oblivious to.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Journalists are really sensitive about who gets credit for doing what. When your business is information, who gets what from whom is really important. Otherwise, there's no way to tell who is doing a better job than anyone else. (In my opinion, it's too important, but what are you going to do.)
For example - I covered the Capitol Fourth celebration for the AP here in Washington. When I got there, I found out there was an AP Radio reporter there who had already arranged an interview with Jason Alexander, who was hosting the show. We agreed to sit in on it together, because we're from the same news organization (and theoretically we should be sharing resources and time, etc). He was reluctant to let me sit in because of the timing of the release of the information -- I assured him that our story wouldn't go out until the AMs newspaper cycle the next morning.
With the Internet, of course, it didn't get printed in newspapers til the following day but appeared online immediately (about 5 p.m.). I had said in the article that Jason Alexander told "The Associated Press" such and such. The other reporter got really mad because I had "scooped" him and attributed the interview to us instead of to AP Radio. Despite the fact that we're actually the same organization.
So this phenomenon, when passed on to people who work for different organizations, can cause serious issues.
To the AP's credit, we tend to be more unified as an organization than other places; bylines tend to be less important. In some of the other places I've worked, people are very sensitive about how much they tell others about their stories, and very sensitive about what other people write on their beat. Turf wars were pretty common. Here, people tend to not care whose name is at the top of the story; it's just important that we get it right and get it fast, no matter where it comes from.
But that ego-driven byline-obsession is another form of this phenomenon.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Thanks, Kasie, you are a peach. If there isn't another way of telling who is doing a better job ferreting out information, I can see the importance of being an exclusive reporter.
In the best light, it's partially ego-driven and partially the only way to demonstrate to your superiors that you are a worthy journalist.
I can play up the second angle in my story. Thanks again.