Always a sure sign of an interview going awry

Good reporters know when to shut up

Once upon a time, reporters learned to be comfortable with uncomfortable silences.

When facing such awkward moments, it is human nature to say something (anything!), but seasoned journalists know it’s best to resist filling such voids. Always let the person you’re interviewing do most of the talking.

If you wait long enough, your subjects may say something they might not otherwise have uttered. It can make a good interview great.

Unfortunately, too many of us, whether we’re reporters or not, blink first, find the awkwardness unbearable, or like the sound of our own voice, or we just can’t control ourselves.

Sometimes we even feel obliged to answer for those we are questioning.

It’s always a sure sign of an interview gone awry, or at least it used to be.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging a subject by demonstrating you care, that you have done your research, or even have unique knowledge about a subject. And many journalists deftly paint their stories with personal touches without being egotistical or obnoxious. And of course we feel obliged to interrupt garrulous politicians.

But you never want to be in a position where you are talking more than the person who is supposed to be talking to you.

Times are changing, however. Today’s interviewers are entertainers. Everyone wants to be the next Larry King, Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, or worse: Howard Stern, Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo Rivera. They are personalities first, interviewers second.

Journalism is just an excuse, and the current world of celebrity journalism seems to encourage and reward chatterboxes, windbags and blabbermouths, most of whom are talking a lot and saying little. No wonder Americans voted a buffoon into the White House.

Take, for example, a recent interview on MSNBC by Chris Matthews, whose show is called “Hardball.” Last week, Matthews was interviewing Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes about their new book, “Shattered,” on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

During the interview, Matthews uttered roughly 1,400 words; his two guests combined said only 1,100. That’s right, the interviewer had more to say than the experts he had invited to talk.

Now, this is television. Television watchers have notoriously short attention spans. Segments are supposed to move along at a fair clip and it’s up to the host to make sure that happens. And some guests can be, well, boring.

Now, however, it looks as if journalists have become the stars. I couldn’t help wondering if Matthews’ guests, themselves journalists who well know the importance of a sound bite, were just there as props in a theatre of the absurd.

The interviewer sometimes seemed to ignore answers to his questions, and simply reminded viewers that his show is really about him.

Then again, maybe it’s not the interviewer; perhaps it’s the audience. We demand newscasters with personality. We watch them so closely — their clothes, their hair — we can’t hear what they’re saying.