Clip-board limits to interviews

Press, 9 June 1978, Page 11

Clip-board limits to interviews

By

KEN COATES

Television interviewers need to be a pretty thickskinned lot. Quite apart from Prime Ministers who threaten to walk off the set, there is this business of carrying on the job in public. There you are, stuck out in front of glaring lights and cameras, not to mention the beady eyes of director, floor manager and a clutch of technicians. Frequently, throughout the interview being beamed into living rooms from North Cape to the Bluff, the cameras zoom up close to expore the leathery surface of a perspiring face. Old-fashioned newspaper

or magazine interviewers practise their craft hidden from the public eye. If they make a fool of themselves by asking a stupid question, there is only the subject to jeer, and he will probably be too polite to pass comment. But while TV interviewers must perform with the world looking on, viewers yearn for a change in style now and again. Why do so many stick woodenly to their clipboard questions? Take Jim Hopkins on TVl’s “Prime Time”. He is a pleasant, conscientious sort of chap who looks as though he could be more flexible. The head of one of the world’s most interesting unions—the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs—Clive Jenkins, made a lively and interesting subject. He even seemed deliberately provocative — television interviews are obviously nothing new for him —but still Jim stuck to his brief. As he read published cri-

ticism of someone Mr Jenkins said had been thrown out of the l abour Party, the trade unionist made curious wincing noises. The subject even tried throwing in a criticism of New Zealand, saying it was like home 15 years ago, but still our Jim would not take the hook. Perhaps one day someone daring at Avalon will suggest the clip-boaid be

thrown away and interviewers concentrate rather more on what their subjects are saying. No-one is suggesting a blind-fold approach with no prepared line of questioning or research; just a little more rapport, even an informative chat (politicians excepted). After all, with the number of civil servants and white collar workers we have in this country, there would have been a good deal of interest in Mr Jenkins’s theories as to improving their lot and safeguarding their jobs. And is it really necessary to introduce a panel discussion so often? This particular segment added absolutely nothing to the session except some disagreement as to whether Sweden’s ventures into industrial democracy are effective. Still, “Prime Time” was nearer reality than the tired adventures of an ageing Steed in “The New (Old) Avengers” and the unbelievable teen-agers and their momma in “One Day at a Time.”

POINTS OF VIEWING