Interviews are one of modern society’s most relevant tools in political communication. However, a small fraction of interviews actually facilitate good engagement. The vast majority of them only serve to increase partisanship.
It is easy for politically minded individuals to recognize the trappings of a bad interview when it benefits a political side they disagree with, but most are unable to spot the same issues in interviews that support their biases.
There are two types of toxic interviews that dominate the airwaves: the shouting match and the softball interview.
Shouting matches have become the norm in recent years, commonly demonstrated in news regarding current events such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Shouting matches, of course, refer to interviews in which none of the participants engage in good faith; often, they talk past each other and interrupt thoughts.
Piers Morgan’s panel with pro-Palestinian activist Nerdeen Kiswani and pro-Israeli activist Emily Austin is a recent shouting match that perfectly showcases why the style is tragically unproductive. It was clear from the beginning that neither of the participants were interested in doing anything besides delivering their talking points and painting the opposition in a negative light.
Any political actor with an opinion on the conflict was left thoroughly unsatisfied, while anyone undecided was left disappointed. No novel information had been produced that could not have been disseminated much more effectively in other ways. The aggressive style of the participants distracted the viewers’ attention from any evidence or valid arguments they may have brought up.
However, such shouting matches often receive high viewership and engagement. The same is true for softball interviews.
A softball interview consists of an unchallenging set of questions and suitably blithe responses for which the interviewee is never challenged. A prime example of the softball interview was Tucker Carlson’s recent sitdown with President Donald Trump.
Carlson asked the former president easy question after easy question. He did not press Trump a single time. Even other conservatives were thoroughly unhappy with Carlson’s lack of journalistic integrity. Yet we continue to watch, despite the lack of challenging questions. The question we should ask ourselves is: why?
Surely interviews as unfruitful as these should struggle to stay popular. And yet, they both gained millions and millions of views in mere days. Again we ask, why?
The answer could be found in psychology. In a shouting match, each politically opinionated viewer will have their opinions solidified. Not out of strength of argumentation, but due to easy identification of the political ally and enemy.
On the other hand, the softball interview allows the participants to completely avoid engaging with any dissenting opinions. This causes supportive viewers to passively reaffirm their current beliefs.
While it is all too easy for us to blame the platforms on which these interviews are broadcast, the responsibility falls on the individual to identify the substantive points of disagreement rather than merely attempting to substantiate their group political identity.
