Amanpour asks toughest questions
TV journalists who have become too chummy with politicians they interview could learn from her sterling example
FANS of ace broadcast journalist
are glad that she’s back in harness on CNN, with her daily show of incisive interviews and confrontations with newsmakers and top world leaders.
Through the years, Amanpour has acquired a reputation for determined fealty to the truth, and nothing but the truth.
Unlike a number of TV news personalities who work out of airconditioned studios and newsrooms, she insists on going to the action wherever it may be—covering wars, riots, disasters and revolutions with the courage and risk-taking bent of someone who long ago decided to live on borrowed time.
Last month, we caught a telecast of her new CNN show, and found her in fine fettle and asking the toughest questions as she tried to help viewers make better sense of the financial crisis in Greece.
Unlike interviewers who take their guests at their word, Amanpour was so knowledgeable about the complex subject up for discussion that she sometimes corrected her highly placed interview subjects on point of fact and historical context—without having to consult notes or look up sources for clarification or corroboration.
At first, some of her guests tried to smooth-talk or otherwise charmingly finesse their way out of a number of argumentative culde-sacs (inescapable situations),
Christiane Amanpour
but their facile ploys didn’t work on the seasoned interviewer, who briskly brought them back to the controversial sticking point at hand.
Local TV journalists who watch Amanpour in action can learn a lot from her sterling example, starting with her fierce commitment to unearthing the truth in the complex welter of prevarications and politically correct “motherhood” statements that surround major news events and upheavals these days.
Professional cynicism
Some TV journalists have become too chummy and accommodating in their relationships with political leaders, when a more objective stance of “professional cynicism” would be preferred.
They opt for the friendly approach to disarm their interview subjects into giving them scoops that can boost their journalistic careers and image, but things often get too chummy—and even subserviently smarmy at times.
Amanpour’s fine example should remind our broadcast journalists of the perils involved when they opt to play footsies with the top guns they cover and eventually befriend.
Other broadcast journalists can also be inspired by Amanpour’s example to work much harder to master the field they’re covering and know it like the back of their hand, so their interview subjects can’t dance circles around them.
Instead of relying on other people’s “research,” TV news analysts should arrive at their own insights, to be of better service to viewers in clarifying the contexts of the complex events at hand.
Perhaps the most difficult adjustment local broadcast journalists and news analysts need to make is to ask the really tough questions, like the feisty, scrappy Amanpour. Many news people don’t want to go that “hard talk” way, because they’re afraid to get on the bad side of the powerful people they cover.
In addition, they fear that the more confrontational approach could cause their interview subjects to clam up. But, Amanpour’s CNN show indicates that the opposite can turn out to be the case: When the interviewer sets the parameters, even the most powerful politicians and leaders respectfully abide by them, sensing that they’ve met their match.