Matteo Venieri
venam@bu.edu
Is it possible that in just a couple of hours John Sawatsky both improved and ruined my life? I asked myself this question a lot in the last few days. In a way, taking his quick seminar was like taking the red pill from Morpheus. From that day, I began listening to other people’s questions under a much different perspective.
Now I often catch myself wondering if Chuck Todd asks too many double-barreled questions to the Democratic candidates, or if Stephen A. Smith’s questions to coach Mike Tomlin were lean enough. Most of the time, I can’t help but finding glaring violations of Mr. Sawatsky’s principles of the art of the interview.
I am under the same microscope as well. When I interviewed a Boston University student for a class project over the weekend, I caught myself asking a “talk about” question and yes, I immediately regretted my decision. This approach has now overflown the limits of my classes.
Lately, I pay more attention to the way I pose questions to my own friends and family. Many times I had a feeling I was conducting an interview with them rather than having a normal chat.
I believe this is what happens when you get Sawatsky’d.
Before last week, I never considered that asking questions could be broken down in such detail and precision. I don’t know if Mr. Sawatsky is the only person who has developed such a methodical approach to the world of questions, but his method seems to be extremely effective.
Asking open, neutral, lean questions is the simple conclusion to a very intricate study. Watching the footage he provided in class from top-notched journalists was eye-opening. I would have never noticed how many deadly sins are committed by seasoned reporters – and that was just broadcast television. I’m sure that radio, online and print aren’t any better.
I feel like multiple-barreled questions are the most common trap for many. Whether it’s because a lack of preparation forces the reporter to give the interviewee multiple options to figure out the next step or because of the stress of nailing one question without wasting too much time, I’m starting to see this sin all over the place.
Personally, I find it most difficult to stay away from closed questions. It was reassuring hearing from Mr. Sawatsky that 5-10% of the questions in an interview can in fact be closed, but I’m afraid my average is much higher than that. It was very instructive to realize how much reporters rely on the attachment to a yes/no question to obtain information that they weren’t able to get in a more appropriate manner.
In the end, I am more convinced than ever that, in order to master the art of the interview, one must avoid at all costs the seven deadly sins. From now on, I’ll be extra careful. Following or breaking Mr. Sawatsky’s principles can make the difference between a great interview and a complete failure. Knowing the risks associated with the latter, I’ll do my best to make sure that his lesson will only improve my life, and not make it worse.
Matteo Venieri's blog 