Questions are precise instruments that can make
the difference between an answer and a quotable one, according to
interviewing expert John Sawatsky.
Inspired by Sawatsky's careful study of the influential role that
questions play in the process of interviewing, I've regularly inveighed
against the questioning tactics of the most prominent interviewers in
the news business: the White House press corps.
Lately, I've begun to regret some of my harsh criticisms. After
all, under the glare of prime-time press conferences, standing up
to the President of the United States; facing off against the most
disciplined communications office in White House history -- all of these
factors conspire against reporters digging for meaningful replies from
a President, Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, et al, who will never veer off message, no matter how carefully parsed the question.
But two words in a New York Times story
about yesterday's Presidential press conference in
Germany have given me fresh hope that at least some of the most
influential journalists might finally be getting the message about the power of questions.
...Enabling a President to play interview dodgeball.A
little back story is needed: throughout the press conference with
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush repeatedly
referred to the main dish of an upcoming barbecue in his honor: roasted
wild boar. It's a familiar form of good ol' boy bonhomie that
Bush regularly relies on to dodge tough questions, such as those asked
about the eruption of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon.
This time, however, the Times'
Jim Rutenberg focused not only on the President's answers but one on of
his colleagues' questions, one that enables a President -- or
anyone else, for that matter -- to play interview dodgeball.
"In his question-and-answer session with reporters, Mr. Bush joked about that dinner, kidding in response to a double-barreled question (my emphasis added) on the growing crisis and Iran�s nuclear ambitions."
Sawatsky disciples, such as myself, ascribe to his belief
that by posing more than one question at a time, an interviewer
allows the subject to choose one over the other and still appear to be
responsive.
I sympathize with White House reporters, who are acutely aware that
they've only got one shot to bag a revelatory quote. Understandably,
they find it hard to resist blasting away with both barrels. The
disheartening result: a sure-fire miss.
Judge for yourself from the White House transcript:
Q: Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?
And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.
Q I'm curious about that, too. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.
The Iranian issue is -- will be taken to the U.N. Security Council.
We said that we have -- to the Iranians, we said, here's your chance to
move forward, and we'd like a response in a reasonable period of time.
And we meant what we said. One of the important things about moving
toward the Security Council, it shows that when we say something, we
mean it. In order for -- to help solve these problems, you just can't
say things and not mean it. And so when we spoke, we said, reasonable
period of time; weeks not months -- that's what we explained to the
Iranians. They evidently didn't believe us. And so now we're going to
go to the Security Council, and we're united in doing that.
On closer inspection, it turns out the reporter asked three
questions--a query that's no longer double-barreled, but perhaps
the Gatling Gun?
In any case, as far as I can tell, the President only responded to the
question about the deadline for Iran's response, ignoring the other two.
Even so, I see the phrase "double-barreled question" in the Times as
a hopeful sign, and perhaps even one of historic import, at least for
those of us who see questions as powerful instruments that can, and
should be, calibrated and posed with strict discipline. One question at
a time, Please. Unless you're trying to confirm a fact, avoid
closed-ended questions that allow for yes or no answers, but often
appear loaded with bias.
Piqued by Rutenberg's story, I searched the Times archive from 1981. The result: 406 instances of the adjective "double-barreled."
They contributed to a wide range of metaphors, among them:
double-barreled holidays, names, tax breaks, mentalities, promises,
treats, attacks, policies, come-ons, surnames, blasts ofs snow and
ice, lobbying for a fat substitute, and (my personal favorite) "a
double-barreled blast of Mae West."
Of course, the occasionally literal turns up as
well--double-barreled 12-guage shotgun, crossbow and squirrel
blaster.
Until yesterday's "double-barreled question" reference, the
concept has appeared only once before as a "double-barreled query" in a
profile of a Long Island mayor by reporter Lynda Richardson.
Rutenberg's story is the first time it's been applied to
press-Presidential exchanges.
Progress? I certainly hope so. Poorly parsed questions, like any
malady, need a diagnosis first, if there's to be any hope of
discovering a treatment and, with luck, a cure.
Pigging out on wild boar, I imagine, is not the healthiest dietary choice.
Doing the same with questions is equally unhealthy for a democracy that relies on honest, straightforward and above all, responsive answers from elected officials.
As Sawatsky puts it. an interview only has one star,...
