Please Do Now:
- Watch the following video: http://www.newshounds.us/2008/09/04/oreillys_efforts_to_sabotage_obama_transparent_but_ineffective.php
- Explain in your own word what you think of this interview: What are its upsides and what are its downsides?
- How is a TV interview different from an interview meant for print?
Today, students will:
- Discuss interview techniques
- Discuss quoting techniques (Direct, indirect, partial)
- Discuss “middle attribution”
- Workshop Nadine’s quotes: http://nadineg2012.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/interview-quotes-2-students/
- View a NOTES AND QUOTES SHEET: http://weissjournalism1.wordpress.com/forms/
Tonight’s homework is:
- Read page 117, and answer the questions on page 118 and 119 ON YOUR BLOGS
- Complete your final interviews.
- Fill out NOTES and QUOTES sheets for EACH of your interviews.
26 responses so far ↓
alexandragenta // September 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
I think the interview was more on an argument then an interview, it was O’Riley telling Obama what he agreed and disagreed with only in not so many words. He was very biased and everytimg obama would say what his opnion on cetain matters was O’Riley jumped in and said something almost rudely. The upside was that Obama,as always, kept his control.
allisonnovack // September 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
I thought the interview of Obama was very interesting because the person who interviewed him did not make him feel compfortable. It’s upsides might have been that not only did you get to hear Obamas views and what he will do as president, but we also got to hear the arguments against his ideas. It was also easy to listen to and not to formal. Its downsides, however, may be that Omama could have felt disrespected. Also that the interview was bias. He kept cutting Obama off when he spoke. A tv interview is different than a print one because you get to actually see peoples expressions, and hear their tone of voice.
hrynor // September 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
The interview was more of a debate than an interview. The interviewer gave the impression that he was for McCain, completely against Obama, and had to get the last word. A tv interview is different, because your viewers will be able to see the entire interview. Also, when interviewing for an article in the paper you are usually more calm and polite because you aren’t getting into a debate that people are watching, and if you are too rude than the person you are interviewing can walk out on you. The good part about it being on TV is that people view the entire interview rather than just a few words you put in an article as a quote. The downside is if you mess up or are to argumentative it will go on the air and you will come over as a bad interviewer such as the one we just saw.
kevins2011 // September 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
In the interview, O’Reilly was constantly attacking Obama with questions and his opinions about how Obama was wrong. An upside to the interview was that O’Reilly got the exact answers he wanted by being very firm with Obama. If Obama refused to answer a question, it might have made Obama look bad. A downside to the interview would be that Obama probably would not want to do another interview with O’Reilly and also Obama couldn’t fully explain his reasoning before O’Reilly cut him off.
LyssaG2011 // September 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
The problem with this interview is how O’Reilly is too authoritative and seems to be trying to make Obama look like a bad person. Something positive about it was that it has that dramatic/conflicting quality that grabs the interest of the audience.
A TV interviews is completely different from an interview meant for print because TV interviews are meant to be seen by an audience. Therefore, it has to be interesting and you can handle it in a different way (like how O’Reilly was able to attack Obama with his accusational questions). On the other hand, an interview meant for print is something that is only read and should be kept more cordial.
lenac2011 // September 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
I think this interview was more of a controversial argument between O’Reilly and Obama. The upside was that Obama learned what he needs to do when there is someone interviewing him and it is not going well. Obama probably thought that he was going into the interview to say what he was going to do as president of the United States. O’Reilly betrayed any trust between them and started asking him questions about the Middle East. He asked what everyone wants to know but he did not do it in a fair way. This was the major downside to the interview. O’Reilly did not respect Obama and he asked him questions, which Obama answered, and then created conflict by contradicting what he said and made him sound bad.
A TV interview is different from an interview made for print because in a TV interview you can see the question and answer process while in an article the author has to incorporate the quotes from the interview into the information of the article. Also in a TV interview you can make it more of an argument between the interviewer and the interviewee by going back and forth and showing an audience how it is done.
jessekirk11 // September 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
I thought that the interview was very unprofesesional and one-sided. It was apparent and blatantly obvious that O’Reilly favored McCain. He asked questions that were difficult to answer and he even tried to lead Obama into answering certain questions to his favor. One of the upsides of the interview was the way Obama kept cool and calm in the face of an arrogant right-winger.
A TV interview differs from a printed interview because printed interviews are done for quotes, so usually a lot of questions are asked and there isn’t a lot of unnecessary commentary in between. TV interviews are conducted so that viewers can witness the entire thing, so they should be highly professional.
patrickquinlan // September 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
I believe that the interview (along with most things Bill O’Reilly does) had a conservative bias. If you will notice, the interview seemed more like an argument, with O’Reilly acting very hostile to Obama. Also, O’Reilly managed to end every topic instead of letting Obama get the last word. Those would, of course be downsides. However, Bill managed to get Obama to answer important questions about multiple foreign policy questions, such as Pakistan. A tv interview is different from a print interview because a print interview is generally edited for space, while a tv interview (like this one) can be presented in full. Also, you can tell the flow of the arguments more easily and discern body expressions and tone.
brittanywaserstein // September 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
I think that this interview was more of a argument then an interview. When O’Riley was interviewing Obama he was rude and interupted him when he was speaking, not letting him finsih what he has to say. O’Riley was very bias and disrespectful towards Obama. Clearly, he was not supporting Obama and was supporting his opponent, McCain. An interview through a video is a lot easier to focus then when it is in print. Also, when it is a tv interview you get to see the persons expressions on their faces and their body movements way they say it.
jessicaw2010 // September 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
I thought that the interview with Obama was different than most interviews ive seen because O’Riley, who interviewed him was rather rude to him. He asked questions and than quickly cut him off. The upsides of the interview was that it was entertaining and Obama didn’t seem to get upset and the downside of the interview is that he was disrespctful to Obama. A TV interview is different than a print people because you are able to notice their reactions with their gestures and voice. Also I think that on a TV it looks more thought out and prepared.
laurenpeterson1 // September 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
The interview that we watched was not exactly what I expected as an interview with the future President of the United States of America. Its upsides included O’Reily being prepared in what he was going to ask Obama and that when Obama didnt answer the right answer that O’Reily was planning on, he asked Obama a follow-up question. The down sides included that it was almost painful to watch due to the aggressiveness that O’Reily had when asking Obama these questions. Another downside was that it was almost hard to follow because they were constantly going back and forth within subjects. They were almost “rude” with each other, constantly interupting. It was, as I said, a very unique interview.
nadineg2012 // September 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
I think that the interview was very interesting and informative, but had the potential to be even more so.
If O’Reilly had asked more specific questions, in some cases, he wouldn’t have struggled so much with getting Obama to provide him with the answers he was looking for.
Also, O’Reilly asked very tough questions, which meant that the viewers learned A LOT, but if he had done so without flat-out arguing with his guest, Obama would probably have been more likely to return in the future.
7y13r // September 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
The Obama interview done by O’Reilly was an amusing event. O’reilly hurled clearly biased and pointed questions at Obama, who was able to maintain his composure despite being visibly flustered. Obama answered O’Reilly’s questions easily, however, O’reilly made sure to always get the last BIASED word in. I find O’reilly highly argumentitive. He made sure not to let Obama get comfortable and make it quite clear that he did not agree with Obama.
carmenk2012 // September 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
The upside to this interview is that he got a lot of information out of Barack Obama. He did this through the questions he asked and the responses he made to Obama’s responses. Its downsides were that he was practically interrogating Obama. He interrupted the answers to the questions that he, himself asked. He showed a lot of opinion in this interview and a lot of what he thought, instead of being neutral in his questions and responses.
A TV interview is very different from an interview meant for print. In an interview made for print, a person is likely to think about what he/she says before he/she says it. There is thought put into the answers. In a TV interview, it sometimes gets heated and people are less likely to think about what they say because they are more caught up in the moment.
rachelcoller // September 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
Upside of Interview: O’Reily asked many important questions and Obama gave answers. His questions were on topics that are important to the American citizens.
Downside of Interview: The interviewer continuously interrupted Obama. Also instead of listening to Obama, and just getting HIS opinion and facts on the specific subjects, the interviewer argued with him.
An interview shown on TV clearly shows the interviewee’s emotions, while in print, the writer must somehow explain the emotions that the interviee was feeling. Also, in print, the entire interview cannot be printed only important quotes are.
Felicia Dejean // September 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
I think the interview did get the point across. But on the other hand Bill was very rude to Obama. He interupted him in the middle of him speaking and was not very nice to him. He got caught up in what he believes and made the interview unconfortable for not only Obama but for me to watch.
Interviews held for TV have to be a little but more interesting then one done for a paper. It has to catch peoples attenction.
ray2012 // September 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
I thought that the Person whon interevied Obama was a very unique interviewer. To me it was more of an argument or debate then a true interview. Its upsides were that the interviewer ,i thought, really put Obama on the spot and made him awnser the important questions that we all want to know. The downside was that most of the time they were arguing and it was hard to get to the main point of the question. A tv interview is diffrent then a written interview beacuse you can see how the person reacts to the questions.
Kelsey Sumalla // September 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
The upside of the interview: O’Reiley managed to get Obama to answer important questions.
Downside of the interview: Obama was constantly interrupted so his opinions weren’t always fully stated and it made the interview sound more like an argument.
An interview meant for TV shows emotions and feeling while an interview meant for print doesnt. The purpose of an interview meant for print is to get qoutes, while an interview meant for TV is to get information and opinions out. You can hear the full interview on TV but you only read small qoutes of the an interview meant for print.
alicel2011 // September 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
I think this interview was a sabotage against Obama. Bill was being very biased. He also never let Bama finish responding to his questions. He would share his own opinions. Bill was fighting Obama all the time, he was interupting . Bill never agreed on anything that Obama would say. The downs was Bill’s attitude toward the interview, the way he acted. I think he was very unprofessional. The ups would be that Obama always maintain his control towards the interview. He didin’t get up and walked out, which is what i would’ve done. In a tv interview you could see the persons emotion, atitude , body movement and tv time is limited.. While a print you could only imagine the tone and and try to get the point out.
laurenpeterson1 // September 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
I believe that a interview meant for print is a little more like an interview and less like a debate. On TV, the interviewer wants to “Impress” the audience a little more.
hkramer14 // September 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
I think the interview was more of a debate. The interviewer seemed like he was disputing with Obama. This does not mean that he was against Obama and for McCain, but I thought they could have had a discussion, not a conflict. Both of the men were cutting the other one off, which, in my opinion, made the interview look a little nasty.
A TV interview is alot different than than an article meant for print. If the interview for TV is live, you have to be careful about what you say.
madisonjsanders // September 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
In this TV interview, The journalist _, whereas in an interview for print, a journalist would only contradict the interviewee for quotes. This interview was very interresting in the sense that the journalist guided Obama to what he wanted from the interview, but Obama somewhat di the same. One upside to this for Obama is that he had a chance to let the Americans hear his perspective of the questions, though his answers were not what the journalist necissarily wanted. One downside to this for Obama is that he was put in a position where he had to imply that the journalist was wrong without stating so.
molliee // September 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
This interview of Barack Obama was very interesting. You could tell that O’ Riley was not letting Obama speak by interupting every time he spoke. Also this interview was a little bias in my opinion. O’ Riley kept arguging with Obama and this didnt really make Obama feel very comfortable. This was a big down side. The upside that we got alot out of information out of this interview. O’ Riley talked about alot of inportant topics, so this was an upside. This is why it was a very interesting interview.
molliee // September 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm |
A Tv interview is different from a printed interview because a Tv interview is usually live and sometimes a little more interesting than a printed interview because you really get to see the persons emotions unlike a printed interview can be a little boring and not that interesting, I think.
alexandragenta // September 11, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
nadineg2012 // September 15, 2008 at 10:52 am |
I forgot to add the last part, so here it is…
In a print interview, the participants have to have a clearer conversation (less arguing, interrupting) than on a TV interview, in order for readers to understand what’s going on.