How excited are you to read this blog post?
Not very? Gee, how can that be? My question already presumes you are wildly enthusiastic about reading my latest mindless rant.
Besides, I'm just trying to keep up with the current interviewing trend. Have you noticed lately that whenever a TV interviewer asks someone a question, the interviewer inevitably structures the question to contain the precise emotion they want to hear parroted back by the interviewee?
It usually goes something like this:
INTERVIEWER: So, you were trapped in the wilderness for three whole days. How difficult was it for you to survive on nothing but stale trail mix and Rolaids?
INTERVIEWEE: Oh my gosh, it was really difficult. I was terrified.
INTERVIEWER: So how amazing was it when you finally saw the rescue team arriving in the helicopter?
INTERVIEWEE: It was pretty amazing. Honestly, I couldn't believe it.
INTERVIEWER: And how relieved and grateful are you to be alive?
INTERVIEWEE: Oh, I'm so relieved and grateful. Actually, it's hard to express —
INTERVIEWER: Sorry, we're out of time. Thank you again for sharing your emotions about this truly remarkable experience. And now, here's Kyla with today's weather...
This style of questioning is now commonly used to discuss virtually any topic, from the very serious to the very trivial. The more trivial the topic, the more earnestly this interview style is employed.
So it's not surprising that the "answer in the question" interview technique has become a staple of Reality TV shows. Leave it to the folks who perfected the art of fake reality to perfect pre-fabricated responses to questions.
I first noticed this phenomenon while indulging in my favorite guilty pleasure, "Dancing with the Stars" (I confess, I watch it regularly. Please don't judge me).
On DWTS, every time a celebrity finishes their dance routine, the breathless co-host asks the celebrity dancer, "So...how nerve-racking was it to dance the Quickstep knowing that Kristi and Tony just earned perfect 10's?" Thus forcing the celeb to answer with either, "Oh, I wasn't really that nervous..." or "I was REALLY nervous...I mean, Kristi and Tony were just awesome..." or some other variation of an answer that must, of course, include mention of said person's presumed nervousness.
Another proven way to add drama to the post-dance interview (or any interview) is to ask about the amazingness of the experience.
CO-HOST: How amazing is it to make it to the Finals after breaking your leg and puncturing a rib in Week 1?
CELEB: Oh, it is like, soooo amazing. This whole journey has just been amazing.
Clearly, the more times someone says "amazing", "awesome", or "journey" in their answer, the better. Because these days, no other answer (or words) will do. So it is essential to lead the respondant to the required response.
You can't even call these "leading questions". They are more like answers posing as questions.
Lest you think this style of questioning is strictly the purview of reality shows and trashy tabloid tv, you would be wrong. Because I now see it used on even so-called respectable news programs. Mercifully, you still won't see Chris Matthews or Charlie Rose posing these kinds of non-questions. But just about every other commentator or newscaster makes liberal use of the "answer in question" style question (Anderson Cooper has, of course, perfected this type of question, as have most of his colleagues at CNN).
Why is this? My first half-baked theory is that we live in a time where we have to constantly try to gin up excitement and emotions around everything. It's no longer ok to let someone tell their story in their own words. Because what if those words aren't exciting enough? That would just be too boring. Today, no one would dare risk getting an honest, unscripted answer. Hyperbole is the name of the game. Viewers have come to expect a certain amount of overwrought language and emotion. Let's face it, all of pop culture is overwrought. This is America. It's all about amped up emotions, all the time.
Also, Americans are lazy. We don't want to have to think about the answers or parse a nuanced answer. So it's just easier when we're force fed some pre-chewed pablum in the form of an easily digestible soundbite.
I also suspect that this particular interview style is just part of the larger linquistic trend, popularized by the young. The current fashion of commenting in the form of a question, as in "How cool was that?" or "Free donuts? How awesome would that be?" has had an insidious influence on language in general.
How certain am I about these theories?
Not very.
How annoying is it to hear this style of questioning on my tv every day and night?
Very.
How amazing would it be if interviewers allowed people to actually answer questions in their own words?
Like, so amazing.
Recent Comments