Last week I decided I definitely want to go to grad school for journalism. No more dithering around, wincing away from the cost and the hemmorraghing local papers, or dragging my feet over taking out more student loans. It might be next fall, it might be two years from now, but I'm going. After, you know, I study for the GRE, take the GRE, track down my old professors to get recommendation letters, put together a portfolio of clips, apply and all the other fun stuff that goes with that.
Last week I also heard from my boss that we're getting another huge case in, and that I probably have a fair amount of overtime coming my way in the near future. While this will hopefully help pay for grad school, it also means I'll have even less time to prepare.
The combination of these two things has forced me to admit there's no way I'm going to have time to blog regularly in the forseeable future. Or play softball. (Sorry team!) I'll continue to post links to my clips on this site, but I probably won't be writing any posts specifically for this site any time soon. Let me know in the comments (or email) if you'd like me to email you whenever I publish something new.
Thank you all for your continued encouragement and interest in my writing!
-Chris
Monday, July 14, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Proposed Interview with Senator Obama
I just completed mediabistro's Interviewing Skills course last night. The last assignment was to think up a difficult question for an interviewee and write out multiple follow up questions to get a better answer. Just for the heck of it I decided to draw up an interview with Senator Barack Obama about the treatment of Senator Clinton during the primary. Here are my questions:
1) Senator Obama, during your primary contest with Senator Clinton many women from both camps raised objections to the way that members of the media covered Senator Clinton. Some of these women cited particular pundits, and others expressed concern with what they saw as a sexist bias in the coverage overall. Here are some of the clips that women have indicated as examples of this bias. [Play Hardball, other clips]
What do you think about these? Do you think that ____(names of pundits in clips)_____ treated Senator Clinton fairly?
Follow up questions:
5) Some women have expressed concerns that the combination of the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton, the lack of outcry from elected Democrats over this treatment, and the fact that this treatment continued even after many women protested indicates that many prominent people think that a woman, any woman, is unfit to be president because of her gender. What do you think about that?
6) Can you name any women now who you think have the potential to be a good president? What about in 8 years, do you see any up-and-comers?
-----
Rationale:
The end of Senator Clinton’s campaign left many women bitter and upset, not just that she lost, but that she was treated disrespectfully by the media because of her gender. Many women have expressed concerns that Senator Obama turned a blind eye to blatant displays of sexism against Senator Clinton, and that the Democratic party similarly did not stand up for her. Due to this lack of response, these women wonder whether Senator Obama and the Democrats will fight for their interests, or whether they simply take their votes for granted and will leave these perceived injustices unaddressed. Some of Senator Obama’s actions, such as calling a reporter “sweetie” and patting his wife on the behind the night he declared victory, have compounded this problem for him.
Senators Obama and McCain are now both attempting to court the “female vote” by talking about how they would support what are viewed as women’s issues, but I have not yet seen either of them actually address the issue of how Senator Clinton was treated.
Asking the above questions of Senator Obama in a nationally broadcast interview would publicly air these concerns and give him an opportunity to lay them to rest. It would be a difficult interview for him because, if women perceive him dodging questions, belittling them, not answering the questions to their satisfaction, or answering incorrectly, he risks losing a substantial number of voters. He could also generate controversy if he agrees that various pundits treated Senator Clinton unfairly, and risk losing those pundits’ support in his fight against Senator McCain.
The interviewer would also need to work carefully because these same women feel that the media has given Senator Obama a pass. Allowing him to get away with not answering the questions completely, or even seeming to agree with him too easily, would risk invalidating the interview in their minds. On the other hand, if the interviewer presses too heavily, Senator Obama could refuse to go back on the network, stop answering questions, or retaliate in other ways.
It would be interesting to do a parallel interview on this same issue with Senator McCain, just to be fair, preferably before Senator Obama’s interview aired. Call it a double blind interview. Neither candidate would know what the other candidate said first, so neither would have the advantage. The network could flip a coin on air to decide which played first, and post both simultaneously online. Of course, who knows if either candidate would consent to that.
What do you think? If you could interview either candidate on a topic, what would it be?
1) Senator Obama, during your primary contest with Senator Clinton many women from both camps raised objections to the way that members of the media covered Senator Clinton. Some of these women cited particular pundits, and others expressed concern with what they saw as a sexist bias in the coverage overall. Here are some of the clips that women have indicated as examples of this bias. [Play Hardball, other clips]
What do you think about these? Do you think that ____(names of pundits in clips)_____ treated Senator Clinton fairly?
Follow up questions:
- Here are some clips of those same pundits talking about you. [Play clips.] Do you think you were given the same treatment as Senator Clinton? Why or why not?
- Do you think sexism had anything to do with the way she was treated?
- [If thinks treatment was same/fair] What would you say, then, to the women who were offended and upset with the coverage?
- [If thinks treatment was not same/fair] Why do you think these pundits reacted the way they did to her?
- Do you think the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton was fair overall?
- [If no] Why do you think this happened? What do you think prompted the unfair coverage?
- [If so] What could be done, and who should do it? (The government, individual politicians, the people of this country, the courts, a combination, or some other avenue?) Do you think this could be addressed with education, viewers and others expressing their outrage, regulation, or by some other means?
- [If thinks nothing should be done] I know you’ve recently stated that you oppose the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Is that why you’re hands off here, or are there other reasons?
- Why do you think there are so few women currently elected to national political office in the U.S.?
- As president and leader of your party, what would you do to get more women elected to national political office?
5) Some women have expressed concerns that the combination of the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton, the lack of outcry from elected Democrats over this treatment, and the fact that this treatment continued even after many women protested indicates that many prominent people think that a woman, any woman, is unfit to be president because of her gender. What do you think about that?
6) Can you name any women now who you think have the potential to be a good president? What about in 8 years, do you see any up-and-comers?
-----
Rationale:
The end of Senator Clinton’s campaign left many women bitter and upset, not just that she lost, but that she was treated disrespectfully by the media because of her gender. Many women have expressed concerns that Senator Obama turned a blind eye to blatant displays of sexism against Senator Clinton, and that the Democratic party similarly did not stand up for her. Due to this lack of response, these women wonder whether Senator Obama and the Democrats will fight for their interests, or whether they simply take their votes for granted and will leave these perceived injustices unaddressed. Some of Senator Obama’s actions, such as calling a reporter “sweetie” and patting his wife on the behind the night he declared victory, have compounded this problem for him.
Senators Obama and McCain are now both attempting to court the “female vote” by talking about how they would support what are viewed as women’s issues, but I have not yet seen either of them actually address the issue of how Senator Clinton was treated.
Asking the above questions of Senator Obama in a nationally broadcast interview would publicly air these concerns and give him an opportunity to lay them to rest. It would be a difficult interview for him because, if women perceive him dodging questions, belittling them, not answering the questions to their satisfaction, or answering incorrectly, he risks losing a substantial number of voters. He could also generate controversy if he agrees that various pundits treated Senator Clinton unfairly, and risk losing those pundits’ support in his fight against Senator McCain.
The interviewer would also need to work carefully because these same women feel that the media has given Senator Obama a pass. Allowing him to get away with not answering the questions completely, or even seeming to agree with him too easily, would risk invalidating the interview in their minds. On the other hand, if the interviewer presses too heavily, Senator Obama could refuse to go back on the network, stop answering questions, or retaliate in other ways.
It would be interesting to do a parallel interview on this same issue with Senator McCain, just to be fair, preferably before Senator Obama’s interview aired. Call it a double blind interview. Neither candidate would know what the other candidate said first, so neither would have the advantage. The network could flip a coin on air to decide which played first, and post both simultaneously online. Of course, who knows if either candidate would consent to that.
What do you think? If you could interview either candidate on a topic, what would it be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)