4 ms·

I used to think she was the gold standard of interviewing, and I still do, in general. > Barbara Walters was once our national interviewer, in a flashier style

I used to think she was the gold standard of interviewing, and I still do, in general. > Barbara Walters was once our national interviewer, in a flashier style defined by a desire for spectacle. Baba Wawa (can't ever not think of her as that, after Gilda Radner) was all "Look at me, look at me! Oh yeah, you're here, too." However, Rick Beato beats Terry out, in the category of certain musicians at least. He's not afraid to just let them talk.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chongli 3y ago
"Look at me, look at me! Oh yeah, you're here, too." I find interviewers like that almost unwatchable. Sorry, I’m here to see the guest, not the interviewer. It’s unbelievably arrogant for an interviewer to behave like that. The best interviewers say almost nothing at all, yet manage to get their guests to really open up and talk about many interesting things. It’s like some kind of superpower, the ability to say just a few, carefully chosen words and have the guest talking for hours.
- dagw 3y ago
  There are two fundamental types of interviews that have entirely different goals. One is the interview as entertainment and the other is interviewing someone to get important information about a specific thing on the public record. And the styles are very different. Sure, sometimes it's fun to listen to a random famous person reminisce for hours about random stuff that's happened to them in an unstructured way, but I don't really consider that an interview. Most of the time I'm not there to see the interviewer or the guest for their own sake, but to try to learn something about an important question. To me a great interviewer is someone who can get to the heart of the issue at hand and elicit an interesting and enlightening answer to an important question as efficiently as possible, especially when it is a question person really doesn't want to answer. Sometimes it does take hours to get there and that is fine, but if you can get answers you are looking for in 15 minutes then there is not no need to waste anybodies time and just let your guest ramble about whatever is one their mind.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    You're talking more about a legal cross-examination. Or a police "interview." They don't want to waste time; in fact, they can't. That's definitely a useful service. Almost all the other people we're talking about here are "entertainment." You can say "that's not an interview" but I don't think you get much traction with that argument. Perhaps "interrogation" is the term you want.
- block_dagger 3y ago
  Lex ;)
  - melkor73 3y ago
    "What do you think about Vladimir Putin?" -Lex Fridman
mightybyte 3y ago
One person who stands out in my mind for interviewing skill and quality is Sean Evans on Hot Ones. The whole show is a great combination of excellent background research, interviewer preparation, empathy, and the setting of ultra spicy food that makes the guest very vulnerable. These factors combine unusually well to increase the effectiveness of the whole thing.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Thanks, I don't know that one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chongli 3y ago

"Look at me, look at me! Oh yeah, you're here, too." I find interviewers like that almost unwatchable. Sorry, I’m here to see the guest, not the interviewer. It’s unbelievably arrogant for an interviewer to behave like that. The best interviewers say almost nothing at all, yet manage to get their guests to really open up and talk about many interesting things. It’s like some kind of superpower, the ability to say just a few, carefully chosen words and have the guest talking for hours.

dagw 3y ago
There are two fundamental types of interviews that have entirely different goals. One is the interview as entertainment and the other is interviewing someone to get important information about a specific thing on the public record. And the styles are very different. Sure, sometimes it's fun to listen to a random famous person reminisce for hours about random stuff that's happened to them in an unstructured way, but I don't really consider that an interview. Most of the time I'm not there to see the interviewer or the guest for their own sake, but to try to learn something about an important question. To me a great interviewer is someone who can get to the heart of the issue at hand and elicit an interesting and enlightening answer to an important question as efficiently as possible, especially when it is a question person really doesn't want to answer. Sometimes it does take hours to get there and that is fine, but if you can get answers you are looking for in 15 minutes then there is not no need to waste anybodies time and just let your guest ramble about whatever is one their mind.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  You're talking more about a legal cross-examination. Or a police "interview." They don't want to waste time; in fact, they can't. That's definitely a useful service. Almost all the other people we're talking about here are "entertainment." You can say "that's not an interview" but I don't think you get much traction with that argument. Perhaps "interrogation" is the term you want.
block_dagger 3y ago
Lex ;)
- melkor73 3y ago
  "What do you think about Vladimir Putin?" -Lex Fridman

mightybyte 3y ago

One person who stands out in my mind for interviewing skill and quality is Sean Evans on Hot Ones. The whole show is a great combination of excellent background research, interviewer preparation, empathy, and the setting of ultra spicy food that makes the guest very vulnerable. These factors combine unusually well to increase the effectiveness of the whole thing.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Thanks, I don't know that one.