The interview, one of the classic styles, is versatile – and seems comfortable for journalists. After all, they also conduct conversations during any other research and gain insights and quotations from them, which then find their way into the article. So why not print the questions and answers right away?
Unfortunately, appearances are deceptive. The interview is actually quite uncomfortable. Because if you are striving for a journalistic interview, you have to reckon with a lot of work. It starts with the preparation. Who do you ask? And for what? Experts are particularly useful for complex topics from science or the world of work. Professional experience can be a selection criterion here. Often, however, the supposedly “normal” conversation with people from the area is interesting because they enable new perspectives on everyday life, whether their name is the principal, the school bus driver or the canteen cook. The general rule is: first think about and research what you already know about the person and the topic – and then concentrate on what you don’t know when answering the questions.
Of course, no interview can do without sophisticated questions. The first question, the so-called introductory question, is particularly important: it should later arouse the curiosity of the readers so that they want to read the interview to the end. There are no limits to the imagination, even jokes are possible. Important: Despite all the creativity, the question should have something to do with the interview topic. Because talking about everything possible is usually not effective; a specific reason or focus is better. Classic research questions – such as: “How old are you?” – often disturb the flow of conversation first and then later the flow of reading. More interesting are the opinions, assessments and experiences of the other person.
That is why the conversation is so important. A journalistic interview is a critical exchange: neither pure chatter nor pure questioning. Listening is actually more important than asking. How does my counterpart sound, sad or convinced? What does she or he mean exactly? And what follows from this? In the beginning, in particular, it often takes an effort to dig deeper and think further about what has been said – but many people are even happy about it. The prepared questions are best understood as a can, not as a must. Sometimes the conversations are even the most exciting ones that suddenly turn in new directions.
It’s best to keep your cell phone running while you’re talking: if you save yourself from taking notes, you can concentrate on what’s being said instead. Of course, this works well in person, but also via video call or telephone. Written interviews lack this private touch. However, they can be a solution wherever standardized questionnaires are answered by different people.
The editorial follow-up is the most time-consuming phase. First, the recorded conversation is typed out. Some software does this quite well, but it still cannot do without manual error correction. When speaking, “uh” and unfinished sentences creep in unnoticed, which need corrections for understanding. Similar statements and blocks of topics can also be bundled in one place, which makes reading easier later. Unlike television and radio, newspaper people have a relatively large amount of freedom here. This allows them to ask a question further up the front if it fits better there. To do this, they have to decide which passages to shorten or leave out because they lead away from the topic or go beyond the available newspaper space. However, the authentic tone of the person should be preserved.
In the end, what is unthinkable in Anglo-Saxon countries, but has become common practice in Germany, awaits: authorization. The counterpart receives the finished interview for approval. But beware! Some promptly take advantage of this to sweep around in the text and praise themselves. In such cases, you have to negotiate cleverly. Sometimes it helps to point out that unfortunately there is simply not enough space for all the comments in the newspaper.