Why interviews fail: Desire for control, unrealistic expectations

Sales pitches, imposed limitations and rambling responses don't work

I recently did a series of posts on past interviews that were especially noteworthy.

Where participants were engaged and had no expectations except to have a conversation, to share expertise and information. It worked because the vast majority of the folks I interviewed were professionals willing to engage in dialogue. They weren’t focused on controlling the process or content.

Then there were those where unrealistic expectations and a desire for control caused me to withdraw the request.

Six months into her first term in 2019 I interviewed Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer at a conference and it exceeded expectations. She was affable, inclined to take the questions head on and was generous with her time. Her media representative was a pro, doing everything possible to facilitate the interview which isn’t easy at a conference, especially with Whitmer who was pulled in many directions.

In late 2022 I requested another interview to measure progress. This is what you said you would do and here’s what you did. It’s the type of reporting most journalists do.

Whitmer’s press office agreed but with a caveat, it had to be via email. Red flag.

We didn’t do email interviews and the subject doesn’t get to set the parameters. I batted it around with my editor and we reluctantly made an exception - she’s the governor - and agreed to the email format. It was a mistake.

The responses received barely touched on the essence of the question and were more like press release talking points. We didn’t use it. There had been staff changes in the governor’s media office and it had developed a hard edge that hadn’t previously existed.

Later, asked by one of Whitmer’s media staff why I didn’t use the interview, I responded that it would have been irresponsible journalism.

Another high ranking Michigan elected official, at the last minute, wanted to dictate the format and make certain topics off limits. We declined.

A prominent Great Lakes author wanted to proof the final copy before it was published. We used a disclosure that the interview would be edited for length and clarity. We declined that interview too.

Then came the USEPA executive in Chicago whose press office agreed to an interview, but only 10 minutes and she would only talk essentially about herself. All of the 60 or so interviews I’d done were 30 minutes, plus or minus. We declined.

A prominent Chicago environmental attorney also wanted to control the time. His media representative agreed to an interview but 10 minutes only while he was driving home. I was familiar with the attorney and that 10 minutes would have quickly evaporated with one question and no follow up. Another, no thanks.

I tried hard to work with university professors because they have expertise and are tapped into the thinking of those who will lead in the future, their students.

Environmental law attorney and professor Nick Schroeck at University of Detroit Mercy was a dream interview. An excellent communicator, concise and worked to minimize legal-speak thus making his comments accessible to a general audience.

But Schroeck was the exception.

In a standard up front disclosure I asked the subjects to self-moderate for length. Say what you need to say but avoid a lengthy tangent. Most made an effort but professors generally agreed then ignored the request rambling on. An editor’s nightmare.

A trusted colleague told me that’s because professors are minimally-supervised and are used to lecturing to students. Based on my experience it’s hard to disagree.

Sales opportunity

Others saw an interview as an opportunity to pitch a new initiative or put a spotlight on an issue. At the extreme, some felt I was obligated to promote their work, I wasn’t.

I understand the need for a non-profit organization to promote its work and I went along within a range. But on one occasion the subject thought it should be the whole interview. I salvaged the interview but I wasn’t happy with it and I suspect the interviewee wasn’t either.

Then there was an executive who agreed to an interview but only if his responses were off the record. A de facto mentor cautioned me years prior to avoid requests like that.

I’ll close on a positive note.

After her interview was published, I got an email from the book author. She had acquitted herself well in the interview and the only editing was tidying up an awkward sentence or two. She thanked me for the interview and for making her sound better than she was.

Made my day.

~ gw