secret recording of interviews, which is covered by the guidance note on secret recording.
make sure the questions are fair and accurate, and put the key contested points to the interviewee
interruptions to answers are appropriate at times, usually when an interview is drifting off topic, an answer has gone on too long, or a question is being ignored. When interrupting, be firm but polite – as the interviewer, you are in charge of the interview and need to control its shape and direction
If you do need to interrupt, be consistent. Don’t badger one view and mollycoddle another. If one talent in a piece of content is being held to account, all talent needs to be held to the same standard; though also remember that balance follows the weight of evidence, and if one interviewee is making more extraordinary claims than others, those claims may require greater scrutiny
Questions can and should be confronting and adversarial when they need to be. On a contentious or controversial issue, it is often necessary to take a ‘devil’s advocate’ approach as an interviewer, and put the views of the opposing side of the issue for the interviewee to respond to.
By the same token, not all interviews need to be combative and confrontational. Gentle probing and a focus on substance can often be equally effective in gaining honest and informative answers.
If you have regular guests that you interview again and again, always take care to make sure that the rapport and friendliness you develop doesn’t spill over into an appearance of ABC endorsement of or advocacy for that guest’s affiliations or views.
Trivial or inconsequential ‘vox pop’ style grabs where there is little risk of harm and the child is in a public location where it is reasonable to anticipate such interactions. An example of this might be stopping and interviewing people in a busy shopping street about what they think of Christmas.
Situations where it is neither practical nor desirable to obtain such approvals, given the nature of the story. An example of this might be an interview with a ward of the state alleging negligence or abuse by the very agent of the state they have been put in the care of.
1.Listen. It is easy to be distracted during an interview, preparing for your next question, thinking ahead to next topics, etc. So focus on listening carefully to what is being said in each and every answer. It will not only prompt you to challenge any facts being put forward, but it will make for a more interesting and engaged conversation for the audience.
2.Challenge. Even if you have no idea if a fact is right or wrong, anything that sounds questionable or surprising can and should be challenged wherever possible. Simple questions such as Is that really the case? – it sounds surprising or Where does that figure come from? or even I wouldn’t have thought that was true can signal to the live audience that you are taking a common sense approach to questioning and challenging important information.
If the interview is with someone accused of significant misbehaviour or wrongdoing, and they simply decide they no longer want to be quoted
If someone in a position of power or responsibility has made a concession or admission and now wishes they hadn’t
If a politician or similar public figure is unhappy with how the interview proceeded or what questions were asked
If someone agreed to an interview but then later found out that someone else they disliked was also being interviewed for the same content
If a vulnerable person (crime victim, witness to tragedy, person suffering from illness, persecution or other trauma) voluntarily comes forward to tell their story and then later regrets it or is further traumatised by it
If a whistleblower or someone exposing corruption or wrongdoing changes their mind and now insists they were wrong and/or will no longer stand by their allegations
If someone claims their interview contained serious inaccuracies or legally defamatory information
If someone claims that, on reflection, the information disclosed in their interview might lead to a real and significant risk to individual life or to public safety or security (and the ABC is able to independently verify such a risk).