Organic Name Reactions for the students and aspirants of Chemistry12th.pptx
Talking About Talking: Oral History Interviewing and Journalistic Interviewing
1. Talking About Talking
Oral History Interviewing and
Journalistic ....
Interviewing:
A Comparative Conversation
-Introduction: Andi Dixon, Ph.D Communications. I am an interviewer, and I am studying the epistemology of the interview. I have a
Masters in Oral History from GSAS, and that is my primary interviewing methodology, though I have also worked in journalism in
public radio and television contexts.
-So today, I want to talk to you about interviewing. In terms of your training as journalists, this is one of those vital, bedrock
components of your practice, and yet, students often receive little instruction. Seemingly, people assume that you know how to ask
questions and get answers. But that simplified approach to interviewing denies that there are real and important choices to be
made in terms of how you approach your interviewing practice.
So to begin, allow me to play this great piece of tape for you. Those of you who are public radio listeners may have heard this. It is
an excerpt from the show Radiolab, specifically a recent episode on the nature of facts, and of truth.
2. Before I start this eight minutes of tape, let me give you some context. This audio concerns the testimony of the Hmong people, a minority Asian ethnic
group found primarily in Laos, Vietnam and parts of China.
The time period this story concerns the period of and the years following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. Dating to the early 1960s, the CIA began
training the Hmong to fight against the encroaching North Vietnamese Army, in Laos. They fought throughout the war, ultimately losing more than one-
hundred thousand soldiers by the War’s conclusion.
The North Vietnamese Army discovered that the Hmong had been waging this war against them with support from the U.S. So, when the U.S. withdrew,
they retaliated by persecuting the Hmong—they were killed, sent to re-education camps, some became refugees in neighboring countries, and for
those who remained, their access to resources was cut-off.
So these people suffered tremendously—displaced, decimated and destroyed. So when the Hmong people in the early ‘80s began complaining that
their persecution was continuing in the form of “yellow rain,” a pollen-like substance, said to kill flora, and induce illness, or even death in humans with
tens of thousands of victims, the Reagan Administration responded by declaring that yet again, Soviet Communist forces were intervening in Laos,
persecuting the Hmong with chemical weapons.
Through to the mid-eighties, the Reagan Administration declared “yellow rain” as a reasonable rationale for the U.S. manufacturing “chemical
weapons.” Scientists were dispatched to the area, and analyzed the “yellow rain.” After some conflicting data, the majority of scientists declared the
substance to be a cloud of bee poop, not at all chemical weaponry, not at all harmful.
Obviously, this revelation did not sit well with the Hmong, who attributed their new destruction to this “yellow rain” agent. So this is a multi-way
interview, between a young woman, Kalia who translates for her uncle, who experienced “yellow rain” first-hand. Radiolab producers Jad and Robert
discuss with reporter Pat Walters in between the interview excerpts. So that is what this story is about, so let’s listen.
3. THOUGHTS?
QUESTIONS?
CONCERNS?
Are there reactions to this tape that any of you might like to share? Concerning sensitivity? Regarding relevant ethical
concerns? Questions of emphasis on facts vs. testimony? With whom are you siding? What do you think this story should
really be about? Did the reporter and hosts go too far with the narrator and his translator? What do you think of the
interviewing? Let’s get a dialogue going.
So obviously, there are a variety of opinions concerning how this interview was done, how the story was set up, the
nature of this sensitive issue, and others.
Obviously, the interviewing methodology advocated on one side was a very facts-based, journalistic methodology, and
on the other hand, the narrative, testimony, bearing witness approach of oral history.
4. WHAT DO WE KNOW
ABOUT THESE
APPROACHES TO
INTERVIEWING?
So let us talk about the history of interviewing in each of these contexts. Obviously, reporters have always asked questions in
pursuit of responses, particularly from those who held political, social and economic power in societies. However, the idea that the
words attributed to the figures were direct quotes, that they actually said what was attributed to them, dates only to the mid-19th
century.
Thus the modern interview, in practice and as published, emerged with the earliest examples appearing in printed, Q&A format in
the 1830s, ‘40s and ‘50s. The earliest examples bridge the Atlantic: there are a few examples published under the editorship of
Thomas DeLane editor of the Times of London, and of course the classic American examples of the Helen Jewett case at the New
York Herald, and Horace Greeley’s interview with Brigham Young in the New York Tribune.
Meanwhile, oral history interviewing grows out of the growing prevalence of interviews in the press, practically as a response to
“Great Man” approaches to history, as reflected in press interviews. The form was pioneered by the gathering of ex-slave narratives
in the 1880s.
Oral history acknowledges that people are more than repositories of facts. Sometimes people don't have all the facts. But that
doesn't mean that their testimony is irrelevant. Sometimes you have to dig deeper for the heart of the matter, for the truth.
"Oral history is not only getting the facts, it is the process of pushing memory, language and ideology as far as possible to bring
into articulation the horizon of the interviewee, to understand how those facts are understood." - Ronald Grele
-Priorities of Oral History: The interview is the negotiation of your study experience, and their lived experience. The primary product
of an oral historian's work is the interview as archived, though other work may also result. However, the archive is paramount, as
we hope to retain this content for future generations' access. Thus audio or video recording quality, transcription and proper
archival processing is vital to the oral historian's work.
5. ORAL HISTORY
VS.
JOURNALISM
So having read about oral history interviewing methods, in what ways does this contrast with the journalistic style with which you
are already familiar? Let’s get a list going... Oral History vs. Journalism
Processes of Oral History:
-Make appropriate initial contact explaining whatever details necessary, establishing permissions, set expectations for interview and the
availability of that interview, arranging for rights and responsibilities, setting the number of sessions, building in breaks; set the timing as
desired and feasible.
-Come to the interview as informed about the topic at hand and context as possible, with organized questions and notes to facilitate the
interviewing process.
-For best results, pre-test audio equipment, make accommodations for you location, arrange for transcription and proper archival processing.
-Avoid closed questions, shoot for questions requiring extensive responses; allow the first question to set the pace for your talk; relax, and
allow the content to develop and structure to emerge; listen and follow up as appropriate, employing flexibility and preparation to develop the
interview.
-Ask for examples; "Tell me a story about that..."; "Set this scene for me."
-Note your interviewee's response to your questions; allow for silences, allow for "on the record" content and "off the record" content if
necessary; forewarn interviewees if necessary, but do not shy away from politely challenging the interviewee on points you deem crucial to the
narrative.
6. (HOW) CAN ORAL
HISTORY
CONTRIBUTE TO
JOURNALISM?
So we have this list. Are there things you might take with you as you develop your individuals interviewing practices? Things you
found interesting or helpful?
Tips for Journalists from Oral History:
-Journalists could benefit from oral history knowledge about memory and the way humans remember during the interview process.
-Journalists could enhance the quality of their interviews by applying some of the concepts from the oral history academic approach to the
relationship between interviewer and interviewee.
-Journalists could augment their skills by borrowing techniques from oral history methodology that involve shared ownership (or "shared
authority" as it is called in oral history studies) of the story they're covering.
-While the literature shows that journalists are more advanced in terms of question types and technical skills during the recorded interview
procedure, there are practices within the life experience genre of oral history interviewing that could enhance the way journalists do interviews.
-As journalists process material to be consumed and understood by the public, they can take valuable lessons from oral history interviewing
methodology in how to treat people's recorded experience during the editing process.
-The underlying emphasis of oral history methodology on the search for meaning during interviews could inform the way in which journalists
seek evidence as they cover in-depth features or investigative stories.
-Journalists can draw lessons from oral history interview methodology as a model for transcribing and archiving material for future verification.
7. RESOLUTION
VS.
NEGOTIATION
After listening to the tape, some of you are raised questions about the facts vs. the emotional heart of the story, and how in this
instance, and probably in others you have or will encounter, those two pursuits can conflict. Ultimately, though, there is not right or
wrong interviewing style. There are biases to either approach: each is a way of accessing meaning, a kind of truth: journalism
generally via facts, and oral history via testimony.
In any case, these two approaches do not stand in opposition to one another. Some of your choices concerning what to do in what
scenario may be situational—others you pin on your personal style—in either case, in your interviewing, you will find yourself
negotiating between the two, searching for a kind of balance.
8. Andi Dixon
Communications Ph.D Student
Columbia Graduate School of Journalism
aad2151@columbia.edu
Well that is my talk. If you are interested in continuing this discussion, in interviewing, oral history, memory, testimony, I would be
happy to speak with you further. Here are my contact details, and I would encourage any of you interested in Oral HIstory to visit the
Columbia Center for Oral History, in 801 Butler Library. Their archives and staff are truly extraordinary, so it may benefit your
current and future work. Thanks very much.