Interviews. The bread and butter of journalism. And sometimes also the jam. The jam,as in that quote,that comment,that point of view,from the newsmaker to the news-seeker,that makes the Q&A,as we hacks call it,not just crunchy,but munchy as well. Please note: theres munchy,and theres maximum munchy. A fine example of the latter: Fatima Bhutto told fivebooks.com,where she was interviewed,that dodgy American involvement in Pakistan finds deep,deep etymological reflection in the fact that the Urdu word for imperialism is samraj. Sam-raj get it? As Ms Bhutto explained,samraj literally means the raj of Uncle Sam. Dont try to analyse this. Just,as they say in TV adverts,enjoy. Ms Bhutto and fivebooks.com later clarified that she didnt literally mean what she said samraj literally meant,that she merely meant that the word has acquired the common,colloquial meaning of Uncle Sams raj. Again,dont analyse,just enjoy.
This degree of maximum munchiness is admittedly rare. But TV journalists especially always try. Which is fair. But just as theres munchy and munchy,theres trying and trying. Basic rule: dont look as if you are trying too hard. Dont let your Qs look scrunchy in search of an A thats maximum munchy. Two illustrative examples.
2. Devils Advocate (DA) on CNN-IBN,with Arundhati Roy. I agreedwith Arundhati Roy. This happened when she told DA you are not listening to me. I think DA wasnt listening because it appeared to be too busy making its Qs as scrunchy as possible. So,Roy would say X,and DA would say,so you are suggesting or so you are saying or are you then saying Y. Bear in mind that Y is an editorialised paraphrasing of X,the scrunchy Q thats hunting for the maximum munchy A. DA had got its munchies (Roy: India is a Hindu,corporate,satellite state). But it was oh so hungry.
So,after Roy argued that it was the Indian states indifference to non-violent movements that by default privileges violence over non-violence,DA asked,but are the Maoists pursuing their goal,which you (Roy) share,non-violently or are they pursuing them violently,thats the problem. Ho! Ha! What! Roy had just spent minutes explaining why Maoists are violent. I absolutely dont agree with Roy. But I understood her argument. But there was DA asking,Maoists are violent,isnt that the problem! Methinks DA was scrunching that Q so that it could get a maximum munchy A? Q: Maoists are violent,isnt that the problem? A: No,its not a problem. Then,furiously flashing on-screen caption: Roy says Maoist violence not a problem. Then,breaking news,etc,etc.
So very different: DA interviewing Roy to Pakistans Express TV interviewing Khan. But DA was so much more entertaining,like fivebooks.com interviewing Fatima Bhutto.saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com
