Interview? Questionnaire? Neutral? Investigative?

Recently, The Hamiltonian featured an 'interview' with Mayor Bob Bratina.

There's a lot of material in the mayor's response. (And from this material, some 'discussion' popped up on both the 'Dissidents' (Hamilton Chapter) on facebook and Raise the Hammer, which features an especially excoriating and blunderbuss-like article by Commander-in-Chief Ryan McGreal, 'The Exoneration of Mayor Bratina'.)

But regardless of the quantity or quality of the response, neither qualifies the piece as an 'interview'.

This is, however, the way Teresa et al do things over at The Hamiltonian. They're very fond of questionnaires. Mostly because it allows the publication/blog to remain 'neutral'. (This 'neutrality' has been offset marginally since Teresa's taking up of the publisher's reins from her hubby Cal, by the occasional 'editorial'. Which, for the record, are consistent in both their execution and their effectiveness.)

So the standard methodology there is to send whomever a list of questions, have them answer them at their leisure, and then publish the results.

As an 'interview'.

Putting aside everything else, the main problem with this is that it totally and entirely obliterates the very notion of what an 'interview' is. Or, in fairness, what it 'should' be.

An interview, at its core, is an investigative conversation during which the interviewer attempts to get not just answers from the interviewee, not just information, but probably most importantly, insight.

And very rarely do a proscribed set of questions produce insight. They generally produce precisely what the person wants to provide, and little more. 

Now, because almost everyone The Hamiltonian 'interviews' is a politician, there are inherent realities. (Or pitfalls, or obstacles or challenges, depending on your default setting.) The person doesn't want to say the 'wrong' thing. They want to continue the perception of capability, of proficiency. They don't want to insult anyone, they don't want to alienate anyone...they don't want to risk their own status. (The end-game in this last bit is 're-election potential'.) So what usually results is a mélange of cogent-enough answers, bafflegab and fog.

There is no 'followup' to an answer, no chance to make a request for clarification, no opportunity for a deeper probe to be attempted.

No richer vein of ore is mined,  no connecting aspect is touched on...

What we really receive is a press release.

Granted, it's been roughly designed and targeted by the 'interviewer', but to maintain that it's an 'interview' is being disingenuous at best.

These days, in the Internet Age, there are many avenues an interview can take. In-person, clearly. Over the phone, naturally. By Skype or other video app. By text-chat. Even by email, serially composed.

But regardless of the means, one thing is consistent: the give-and-take, back-and-forth between the interviewer and interviewee, the sometimes-fencing, sometimes-dancing that a great interview resembles. Some examples? Sure: Charlie Rose, George Stromboulopolous on 'The Hour', James Lipton on 'Inside The Actors Studio'...or, if we're talking about an impromptu interview, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the steps of Parliament dealing with the FLQ crisis with CBC reporters.

I understand why The Hamiltonian approaches things in the way that they do. It wants to retain its neutrality. It doesn't want to ruffle feathers. It doesn't want to get on anyone's 'bad side'. It wants to continue to provide what it believes it's been providing for its readers all along...and presumably the foundation of this is its neutrality. 

But nothing is ever truly 'neutral'. Not in today's world. (If it ever was.) And declared neutrality most often ends up muddying the water, if only because the status quo is allowed yet another moment on the stage, but moreso because the very tenets of journalism...and let's face it, The Hamiltonian exists to push forward its own benign, convivial brand of journalism, shining light on current local affairs...don't include neutrality. 


That doesn't mean that all portals of journalism are either on one side or another, but that to ask questions, questions sufficiently important to require answers for, implies that the questions themselves need to be asked on behalf of a large group of people. The subject is important, the answers are needed...so the questions are asked. 


Out of this was born all variations on 'investigative journalism'. The people have a right to know the truth, journalists are charged with the responsibility of obtaining these truths, and should do so with the goal of obtaining these truths being paramount, and not sustained neutrality that serves best the person attempting to manage the interview. 

Otherwise, a press release would suffice: happy little lemmings, we. 

I suppose what bothers me the most about the reaction to such 'interviews' is that a) the person bestowing such beneficence on readers is granted a communal 'Thank you!' for being so generous, and the 'interviewer' invariably seems to have warranted a statue. 

Clearly, we're so dissatisfied with things in Hamilton that for some, a small victory is worthy of praise befitting a champion. 

Look; I applaud Teresa and everyone else over at The Hamiltonian for getting Mayor Bratina on the record about some basic stuff. (Even if the responses were, to a one, hackneyed rhetoric, 'fluff' in some circles.) But we need to be honest with ourselves when we're not only examining the end product, but the process itself. Namely, that a questionnaire isn't an interview. And that in this case, I highly doubt that the mayor would have submitted to the process if it had in fact been an 'interview'...and that assuming an interviewer up to the task would never have settled for the answers that resulted. Which, make no mistake about it, resulted in little more than a long-form press release. 

M Adrian Brassington