Bob Woodwards interview with Bill O'Reilly

[toombs44]

This is not anti-Bush review of Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Bob Woodward, it is instead a review of his interviewing tactics that were used during the two segments.

Segment 1 7:25 minutes

O’Reilly talked for 4:07 minutes and Woodward for 3:18
O’Reilly talked for 55.5% of the first segment and Woodward 44.5%

O’Reilly asked six questions in the first segment:
1. What is the headline of your book?
2. Are you Bob Woodward saying that the Iraq War is a lost cause?
3. You haven’t come to the conclusion the Iraq War is lost?
4. He read The New York Times review of the book and then asked, do you think this is a fair assessment of your book?
5. You can’t send the message to the US and Iraq troops that you may not support them?
6. I don’t think you believe that? (that the Iraq War is a lost cause)

O’Reilly ended the first segment saying that, “I have a number of other questions for you.” Unfortunately, in the second segment he didn’t ask a single question.

Segment 2 6:16 minutes

O’Reilly talked for 3:32 minutes of the second segment and Woodward for 2:44
O’Reilly talked for 56.4% of the second segment and Woodward for 43.6%

Twice Woodward had to interrupt O’Reilly with: can I respond and will you bear with me on this?

And at the end, O’Reilly, instead of giving Woodward the last word said, “I am going to take the last word.”

In total the interview lasted 13:41 minutes.
O’Reilly talked for 7:39 minutes or 55.9%
Woodward talked for 6:02 minutes or 44.1%

In conclusion, I don’t know what the desired ratio is in an interview like this but I don’t think the “rule of thumb” is for the interviewer to talk more than the interviewee. Otherwise, it is a lecture and not an interview.

 

[evnlee]

In conclusion, I don’t know what the desired ratio is in an interview like this but I don’t think the “rule of thumb” is for the interviewer to talk more than the interviewee. Otherwise, it is a lecture and not an interview.

Man do I hate defending O Reilly, because I really despise the man.

That being said, a couple things to take into account.

How much of the time allotted was used in resetting,setting up the interview, introducing the guest, various promos,etc? If that is figured in, then maybe the true ratio is probably more then 50-50.

Also, it's not called the 'Woodward Hour'. It's the O'Reilly radio factor. Of course the host should talk as much as the guest. It happens everywhere~ I bet if you listened to NPR and got your stopwatch out, you'd find that Steve and Renee on 'morning edition' do the same in thier interviews. It would be a snorefest if the host just sat there and rarely got involved in the discussion.

Toobs, did you really time this yourself ? ???

 

[toombs44]

Yes I did time this...and the reason why is because I have worked in TV and Radio for about 24 years...I have done tons and tons of interviews...mostly sports interviews...

My view is when you interview somebody your goal is to get something out of them. So as I am listening to this interview I was thinking Bill is lecturing not interviewing. I think his agenda is getting in the way of his interviewing skills. Thats why I taped the 4 AM replay and timed it myself.

I am not a political person...I am into sports. So I watch shows like that and observe them from a media standpoint.

Normally Bill does a good job on Q&A...but this was a poor example of his work. He did not ask a question in the second segment. He wasn't interested in quizing Woodward on the book, but instead was more concerned with the effect the reaction to the book would have on the war and etc.

As I write this O'Reilly is on right now doing his regular fine job of Q&A...

Unfortunately, in the case of the Woodward interview...he was more concerned with his thoughts than his guests....if you don't believe me..Listen to it.

.

 

[FightingIrish]

Yes I did time this...and the reason why is because I have worked in TV and Radio for about 24 years...I have done tons and tons of interviews...mostly sports interviews...

My view is when you interview somebody your goal is to get something out of them. So as I am listening to this interview I was thinking Bill is lecturing not interviewing. I think his agenda is getting in the way of his interviewing skills. Thats why I taped the 4 AM replay and timed it myself.

I am not a political person...I am into sports. So I watch shows like that and observe them from a media standpoint.

Normally Bill does a good job on Q&A...but this was a poor example of his work. He did not ask a question in the second segment. He wasn't interested in quizing Woodward on the book, but instead was more concerned with the effect the reaction to the book would have on the war and etc.

As I write this O'Reilly is on right now doing his regular fine job of Q&A...

Unfortunately, in the case of the Woodward interview...he was more concerned with his thoughts than his guests....if you don't believe me..Listen to it.

.

O'Reilly suffers from Geraldo syndrome. Namely, he is more about interviewing himself than his guests. John Stossel is the same way.

Notice with O'Reilly that it's always about him? Or that so and so amount of people agree with him? He's just a loudmouth narcissist.

 

[fred flintstone]

O'Reilly suffers from Geraldo syndrome. Namely, he is more about interviewing himself than his guests. John Stossel is the same way.

Notice with O'Reilly that it's always about him? Or that so and so amount of people agree with him? He's just a loudmouth narcissist.

This is a problem with most radio interviewers.
There is the enough-about-me-what-do-you-think-about-me school.
There is the long-speech-showing-how-smart-the-host-is-followed-by-don't-you-agree school.
There is the Perry-Mason-Mike-Wallace-beat-up-the-guest school.

And Even says the host should talk half the time! Ten per cent tops.
It the host wants to rant, he should rant. If he wants to do an interview, then do an interview.
The purpose of the interview is to hear from the guest.
Anything that takes attention off the guest is bad interviewing.
A good interviewer is like a straight man in a comedy act. He sets up the punch line, he doesn't deliver it. He looks good by making the other guy look good. And he knows how to listen - really listen.
Very few in radio fill the bill.