by Mark Tebeau | March 8th, 2010
In the comments section, respond the your sense of the Loconti Interview, which I will link, in its entirety, here. What worked in the interview? What did not? What would you do differently? or similarly? Explain why, in your answers. (And, refer to a time code, if possible.) Also, what insights do you take away for our project?
Mark Tebeau
Listening to the Laconti interview surfaced many questions and concerns I did not previously consider in conducting an interview. I had originally thought to myself “well this can’t be hard, why do we have to do so much training for this?” I noticed immediately technical aspects along with formatting for the interview that I need to think about and prepare for.
My notes from the Laconti interview were as follows:
-The first question was rather broad, and I felt like there was no introduction or lead-up to prepare us for what the interview was focused on. For the listeners’ value/benefit, there should be some buildup of the basics instead of jumping right in.
-Some questions were vague, for example, twice (in two different contexts) the interviewer asked “what was that like.” I think this can be good from the standpoint of opportunity for the interviewee to really talk about what is important to them, but it could lead to a dead end.
-One of the good questions that stood out to me was when he asked “when you first opened the Agora, what were the successes and failures?” It was broad enough that the interviewee could expand on it in a direction they felt was important, but it was also specific to a time period and a good lead-in to other information about the topic.
Listening to this interview, along with participating in a practice interview today in class, made me aware of the fact that no matter how much you prepare, an interview is always somewhat impromptu. I think there is a lot more to be prepared for that I had originally anticipated!
The goal of the interview at first appeared to be the “History of the Agora”. As the discussion progressed. the a broader goal of exploring the music – media connections and developments in Cleveland over the past 40 years that Mr. LoConti was involved.
Good: Very few questions prompted Mr. LoConti’s input; he volunteered a lot during his story. Beginnings, standout experiences, clarification of terminology were prompts to gain valuable insights from him.
Bad: Technical issues included microphone volume/proximity and a cell phone ringing. There was no introduction at the beginning of the session to ‘orient’ the listener.
Things to change: Some questions appeared out of logical sequence. The interviewer once3 commented that he “was fascinated by this; I know nothing about..” These comments can be left out of the questioning.
I think that this interview worked very well. All the questions were to the point and themed with the interview. i hope my interview goes as well as this one did. i learned quite a bit, about asking questions and being ready to ask follow up questions. this interview has made me more aware of what i need to be ready for in my own interview.
I think the interview worked. I can understand why the interviewer had to speed through the questions. Loconti seems like the guy who could go on and on about any one topic. It’s a pretty tough question. “Do I let the guy go on or do I move the interview along?” The answer to balance it but it is a tough balance to strike.
I probably would’ve turned off the cell phone.
In the Loconiti interview brought out a bunch of interesting things that would be great for my interview, I unfortunately will not be able to site a time line part because I could not see the time line on the screen. First thing I noticed was how the questioner explained about how they were at the Agora and who he was interviewing, and then he asks about where he was born and raised. The question’s after that were all about the Agora and its history, this seemed to be a quick change of pace from where you born to the Agora. The thing I wish the interviewer would have gone more in depth with was when he asked all about why he opened the agora, the interviewee then goes on to say he opened more Agora’s in other places but never explained what happened or why he thought they did not survive. This was something I was hoping for him to get involved in. All in all I thought the questions were good questions because they lead the interviewee into answers, but I think that there was more that could of have been added after that. The answers given were fulfilling to the question but there were some that seemed he had more to say but the interviewer was focused on making sure he got all his questions answered. This might just be me though because it is always easier to see other downfalls before seeing our own.
I thought the Loconti interview was effective overall with a few minor flaws. In general I thought the interview was well prepared and concise. Some excellent questions that really stood out to me were; Can you describe your motivation behind creating the Agora Theatre? (5:45), Can you describe Agora’s association with local radio and how did they impact each other? (22:25). I also felt a few questions were too vague and could have been worded differently such as; Tell me about your childhood? (2:31) and Can you recall some memorable shows at the Agora (33:00) These questions would not merit a focused response and can create rambling. The interview presented a few techniques that i feel could of been honed including the lack of pauses of silence after each response. Immediately a new question is being asked which denies the interviewee time to reflect and gather their thoughts for the next questions. Also the interviewer began asking the most serious and important questions as soon as the interview began with very few throw away questions or time to make the interviewee feel comfortable. Although there were a few of these mistakes, the interview was very well constructed. An excellent technique was the preparation. You can tell the interviewee did his research and knew the topic extremely well. The questions were also well thought out and the use of follow up questions was an excellent tactic. For my project, i would like to ensure the interview runs as smoothly as the Loconti one did. Even if i do not have a natural talker as an interviewee, I need to prepare with guided questions and be able to present a high level of engagement.
For the most part I think that the Loconti interview was good. Most of the questions the interviewer asked were good. One thing that did not work was the cell phone going off twice. Follow up questions should have been asked by the interviewer not the person supervising the interview. One thing i would do differently is make sure my cell phone is off. Also, i would make sure to ask follow up questions to get more important information from the person being interviewed.
I think that the interview was good, but there were things that I would have changed. I would have tried to cut the stuff out of the interview, such as the testing as it was recorded, and tried to prevent things such as the phone going off in the middle of the interview. I think the interviewer asked good questions and tried to get to the point. I think that he should have asked more follow up questions to see what would have been said about the subjects. For the most part, I would try to do something similar. I would just try to not make the mistakes that were made, some of which I went through. Above all else, I can take away a good example to follow. I can be better aware of the things that might happen and I can better plan for those at the time of the interview.
I think that the Loconti interview worked. I would not do anything differently. Almost all of the interviewer’s questions were concise, intelligent and to the point.
I learned something from the interview about asking intelligent questions.