To share, or not to share TV interview questions in advance

A viewer (name withheld) raised some concerns with the recent NTV On the Spot interviews and offered some advice. She said: “…sometimes questions may be shared in advance or at least the areas otherwise if a guest is taken out of scope, it may embarrass the guest as well as the TV station. For example, the last time the Speaker was there, the host asked a question out of scope that did not go well with the guest and yesterday [Bobi Wine interview I guess], I again heard him ask technical questions that even an economist would need to ponder and reply, and the guest seemed unprepared. It is important to prepare your guests so that the viewers, guests, the hosts and the station are not embarrassed! The programme will then have immense benefits to all stakeholders!”

She is absolutely right that interviewers need to be prepared by the interviewee in advance so they have a sense of what to expect. It is also important to prepare the audiences so they look forward to the interview and benefit from the interface.
Having said that, the question now arises as to what is the level or details of preparation? I will not dwell on the specific interviews referred to above, but will focus broadly on what, from a journalistic perspective, is adequate level of preparation, what from the interviewer perspective is fair advance information, and what from the audience perspective is a fulfilling interview.

Many interviewees would prefer a situation where questions are sent to them in advance and the interviewer sticks to the script because that makes them feel “safe”; it keeps them in control since there are no surprises. On the other hand, this approach takes away from journalists control of the direction of the interview as he/she may not make any follow-up questions or probe the interviewee to explain or expose how much grounded they are in the issues being discussed.

For the viewer, such an interview will come off as mechanical. They will not be able to read the emotions of the interviewer and the interviewee as well as make sufficient judgment of the how good or bad the people on the screen are with regard to the issues under discussion. They will also lose out on follow up questions that would have provided more insight into the issues.

Thus in many ways, sharing interview questions in advance and sticking to the script is like cheating an examination! It takes away the thrill from everyone and it comes off as a ritual! There are certainly some few instances when questions may be shared in advance, but these should really only act as guidelines rather than as the “scripture”.
What is best for everyone is when broad areas that the interview will touch on are shared. For instance, an interview with someone that wants to run for president would touch on democracy, the economy, social services, elections, place of the military, etc. The specific questions in those areas and how they are framed should remain at the discretion of the interviewer.

David Spark, writing for Forbes online, puts it best. He says: “An on-camera interview is not just about the words a person says, but how they say them. I’d argue that if you’re trying to make an emotional connection with the viewer, the way they say those words is more powerful than the words themselves. If you send questions before an on-camera interview, you will never have the opportunity to see an emotional response. And emotional responses is what you want, because when you evoke emotion in your interview subjects, that in turn evokes emotion in your audience. Triggering emotion is what gets people to share content online.”
I could add it is what gets everyone talking!

*****
One J. B. sent me this text message: “Your article of March 1, drew my attention to how media invades people’s privacy. I blame the courts that back them when these issues are taken there. If heavy fines or imprisonment is imposed, they [journalists] will learn some lessons and they stop writing arrogantly about people’s private lives.”
Well, courts are always judicious in their verdicts. Besides, defamation is a civil not a criminal matter so jailing journalists is not right. However if found guilty, they should be fined.

Send your feedback/complaints to
[email protected]
or call/text on +256 776 500725.