Interview Techniques

Television interviews use different types of techniques depending on their target audience to
gather and present information to their audience. This is achieved in many different ways which
include using different styles of interviews. One style of interview is hard news which presents a
lot of serious news to their audience on channels like BBC News, NewsNight & Channel News.
This interviews tend to present information on topics that will affect a large population hence
why it uses hard hitting news like the Ebola crisis and the conflicts occurring around the world.
Another style of interviews in Investigate. This is where the interview will have a host and an
witness or someone linked to the case/topic to get their opinion on the matter/their point of view.
Paxman Essay:
In 2012, Chloe Smith was invited onto NewsNight to discuss the car tax rise that was due to be
implemented, which was scrapped last minute due to a change of plan. From the use of miseen-scene in this programme (Newsnight), we can imply that Newsnight is a hard new
programme. Certain aspects of the Newsnight set portray the programme to be hard news such
as the background images. For example, the picture of George Osborne, the chancellor of the
exchequer who is the person in charge of the UKs tax management. He organises and and
decides the budget for the tax year. Traditionally, when Osborne walks out of 10 Downing Street
holding the iconic red briefcase, it indicates he has decided the new taxes for the year and will
address the Parliament and the country on the changes that are to be made in order to keep the
country running. He will implement his new strategies on how the funding will change over the
course of the year across the UK. Displaying this iconic image in the background will allow the
audience to recognise the topic that will be discussed during the show that it relates to the new
tax year. The use of this image indicates that this interview will be to inform the public/viewers of
the changes that are being made for the new tax year and enhance the audience understanding
on the topic. This idea is supported by the use of the U turn sign that is also displayed on the
right hand screen. This indicates to the viewers that there has been a change of plan/withdrawal
of something to do with new policies that were supposed to be implemented for the new tax
year.
Newsnight's setting also portray the programme to be Hard News. The use of certain layouts
and props within the frame express the programme's purpose of Hard news interviews. For
example, the layout of the table with Jeremy Paxman sitting at the end of the long table with
Chloe Smith sitting on the side on of the end. This shows that Paxman is the head of the table
and has the most power as Paxman is in charge of the interview. This is due to the fact that
Paxman is the interviewer with the questions and Chloe Smith is the interviewee with the
answer which makes Paxman the more important person in this situation. Paxman has the lead
in this interview and his purpose is to extract information out of Chloe Smith to enhance the
audience's knowledge on this topic and to understand the reasons to why certain tax laws that
were scheduled to be implemented withdrawn.

The props used on the set of Newsnight also portray the programme to be Hard news. For
example, the use of minimalistic objects such as sheets of paper on the desk and a glass of
water. The sheets of paper shows that Paxman has done his research on the topic being
discussed which allows him to have the power of knowledge over the audience. This allows
Paxman to extract information out of Chloe Smith by asking questions that are not detailed and
use evidences to back up his points such as quotes. It also shows that Paxman is prepared for
any information that Chloe Smith might say which may be incorrect/false which will allow
Paxman to rectify for the audience so they understand retrieve accurate information from the
show. This shows that the programme is hard news based as Paxman has all the information
researched ready to fire at Chloe Smith. The glass of water and the papers indicate that the
show is formal. This is because at a formal discussion such as a hard new programme, the
interviewer and interviewee is not allowed to walk off set to gather information or to hydrate
themselves. This is why everything that is necessary for the short programme is supplied such
as the glass of water and the research which also portray the programme to be formal along
with Hard news based. The advantage of using props is that they can help express the
programme's purpose of being a Hard news interview along with the ability to enhance the
audience's knowledge. On the other hand, the use of these props such as a the glass of water
and can cause a problem if it is knocked over accidently causing the programme to lose its
seriousness and lose the audience's attention, along with defeating the purpose of the program
being a hard news programme.
Newsnights dress code is formal to portray the programmes hard news purpose. For example,
Jeremy Paxman is wearing the usual formal outfit of a suit with a tie and Chloe Smith wearing
another type of formal outfit using a blazer. This portrays the programme to be serious due to
the formal outfits which ties in this the hard news purpose. Formal attire is worn a usually at job
interviews, professional jobs such as office work which expresses the seriousness of the
programme which is crucial in a hard new interview. Using formal attire also expresses the
factuality of the show backed up with the research and the intention to enhance the audience's
understanding of the topic in question. On the other hand, the disadvantage of using formal
attire is that the interviewer and interviewee will not feel comfortable as suits, ties and blazers
restrict a person's actions and movements. This will hinder the person's capabilities due to the
formal clothes making them feel tensed and anxious in a stressful atmosphere of a hard news
interview instead of feeling relaxed which will allow a person enough time to think, react and
respond with the best and most accurate answers.
Language is an important factor that makes up a hard news interview. In this particular
interview, Formal language is used throughout the whole interview which is evident right from
the start. Jeremy Paxman begins the interview by address the audience of Chloe Smith stating
her role that has played apart in the topic that is being discussed as A minister in the Treasury.
The use and purpose of stating Chloe Smiths occupation is to enhance the audience's
understanding of the amount of information that Chloe Smith knows which Paxman is going to
try to extract via this hard news interview style. Another example of using language that indicate
to the audience that this interview style is hard news is when Jeremy Paxman is being
interpreted by Chloe Smith while saying There are a lot of uncertainties here, you. This

indicated that the style of this interview is hard news due to the fact that Chloe Smith interrupts
Jeremy Paxman so stop him from giving out information that the audience will believe due to his
research.
Jeremy Paxman asked array of questions within the interview to make it combative. For
example, one of the type of questions he asked was developmental questions and this was
used throughout the interview such as when he asked When were you told?. This is used to
allow Chloe Smith to elaborate on her answer to give the audience a better understanding but
she instead gives a simple answer ive been involved in this for some time which has no
accuracy to it neither any useful information that the audience will be interested in. Another
example of a developmental question used is Right and at some point, is it hard for you too
and alright, In may you said it is not certain that cutting fuel duty would have a positive effect on
families or businesses which Jeremy Paxman uses to enhance the audience's understanding of
the current situation of the change of plan that Chloe has not been clear about. Paxman has
used these developmental and key questions to provide the audience with information about
Chloe Smith and her involvement within the topic which pressurises her to tell the truth due to
her previous statements about the topic. It enhances the audience of Chloe's opinions before
the change of policy and her current opinions on the policy change which exposes the fact she
must of lied in one of the two scenarios as her opinions contradict.
Further on during the interview, Paxman asks more developmental questions which are also
intended to summarize the situation. For example Ok, its going to cost you say now about
550m, in contrast with your figure on 23 May, which was about 1.5bn. What, you just got the
sums wrong, did you? This question makes Chloe and her team seem incompetent to the
audience as they are using different figures that are drastically different and change the whole
situation. This makes the treasury team seem as if they are not fit for the job or are lying about a
source of income that has reduced the sum which Paxman is trying to make Chloe say for the
audience's knowledge. Due to the orders Chloe has been given, even under the pressure of
Paxman's questions, Chloe doesnt reveal the complete truth but the side effect of this is that
the audience now understand that they are hiding information that should be given to the public.
He then further goes into the two different figures that the treasury has supplied the public at
two different times Its specifically about the August increase actually, the 1.5bn that you
referred to and now you say is 550m. This further supports Paxman's argument and makes
the audience feel more supportive towards Paxman as well as believing what he says due to the
dishonesty of the treasury team which Paxman has exposed with the unclear figures.
Paxman continues with his questions to make the treasury team and especially Chloe Smith
seem incompetent to the public with his question that states And can you just confirm to us that
the number one priority of the government is reducing the deficit. The reason this question
makes the treasury team seem incompetent is due to the fact that everyone knows a
government is there to keep the country running while keeping clean out of deficit and debts but
with the style of a simple and developmental question that Paxman asks, it manipulates the
audience's minds to believing the treasury team are not suitable for their jobs. He then goes on
to cut in when she answers the question with Thats the number one priority which makes the

audience think about why Paxman has asked this question in such a way that makes Chloe
Smith's answer seem false. Paxman is manipulating the audience's mind into thinking that the
treasury team is not doing their jobs appropriately and are incompetent.
This idea the Chloe Smith is incompetent and relies on other people to make up her mind is
backed up with Paxman's question Do you ever wake up in the morning and think, my God,
What am i going to be told today. This makes Chloe Smith look like a puppet of which the
bosses are hiding behind and using her to get away with their false information to the public. It
expresses the fact that Chloe Smith has been told what to disclose and what to not say which
should not be the case when someone is being honest about the situation that will allow them to
disclose all the information they have as they are not at fault. His final question You ever think
you are incompetent finally seals of Paxman's thoughts of Chloe Smith to the audience to which
they can decided if they agree with Paxman or not. This simple closed question, Chloe
responded in an open way in order to make herself seem not incompetent to the audience with
her answer but the fact the topic still has not been cleared on why the change of policy has
occurred apart from the unknown sources of funds makes the audience believe she's
incompetent.

Jonathan Ross & Tom Hardy

The interview between Jonathan Ross and Tom Hardy is completely opposite to the interview
between Jeremy Paxman and Chloe Smith. The reason for this is because the Paxman and
Smith interview was combative compared to this particular interview which is light hearted
entertainment orientated.
From the start of the interview, the audience can feel the difference between the Paxman
interview compared the Rosss interview. This is evident from the warming introduction to make
the guest (Tom Hardy) feel comfortable on stage and relaxed which allows him to be more
entertaining. An example of this warming introduction is when Ross builds up the confidence of
Hardy by saying Great to have you here Tom. Tom is famous for changing his body to play
roles. He's one of those guys, as an actor who really gets into the role. The purpose of this is
to make Tom Hardy feel more welcomed on the show by the host (Jonathan Ross) and by the
audience who are watching live which may cause the guest to feel under pressure not to make
a mistake.
Ross then goes onto asking closed but multiple questions within the same introduction section
...Youve been up and down in weight haven't you? You go up and down like a yo yo don't you?
It's a challenge isnt it Tom?. Due to the amount of questions that Ross has asked, Hardy
replies to all of them with a simple yes as most of the questions the Ross asked were rhetorical
and only said in order to promote Hardys dedication as an actor and introduce his passion as
an actor to the audience (enhancing the audience's understanding of Hardy).

In the introduction, Ross included a sarcastic joke to build a rapport with Hardy as well as make
the audience laugh which is the intention of the interview (to be light hearted). Ross said ...and
his big challenge now is to get back down to a taught ten and a half stone to play me in the film
they are making of my life. It's a challenge isnt it Tom?. This type of joke of self humiliation for
Ross is what makes his show entertaining and the fact that Hardy has a serious face when he
replies with a yes, makes the audience laugh which achieves the light hearted entertainment
purpose of the show.
In the next section of the show when Ross invites Hardy onto the stage in front of the audience
to commence the interview. He begins with Shall we get my next guest out ladies and
gentlemen? which is used to introduce the guest (Tom Hardy) to the audience who may not
know who he is. This question is a closed question as it is asked to the whole audience and you
wouldn't expect to ask the audience an open question as the audience would not be able to
answer it clearly for everyone to understand. He continues his section with One of the most
really gifted screen actors of our generation in order to promote Tom Hardy and his focus
towards his career.
After Tom walks on stage, sits in his seat and the audience finish applauding, Ross winds ups
Hardy in a jokey manner I like to think that some of those whistles were for you as well. This is
used to make the audience laugh and to which Hardy replies with a So would I to go with the
joke. Ross then goes on to say I'm so excited you're on the show which builds up the
confidence of the guest on stage to make Hardy feel more relaxed. This improves the shows
reactions as the guest will feel more comfortable and be able to open up more.
Ross then moves on to Hardys interests by asking Are you enjoying the World Cup? Are you
watching the football? Are you a football fan?. The use of the multiple close questions is to
allow Hardy to answer multiple questions at once to see what his interests are which a simple
yes or no answer. The use of these closed questions is a good implementation of style as it
eases Hardy into the interview as he doesn't have to think much about the answer (it's straight
forward). The multiple questions are used to support Hardy think of his answer and understand
what type of answer Ross expects.The multiple question may make Hardy feel like he's being
bombarded with questions right from the start but as he is not interested in football, he's
answers with a No, no and then carries on with Rosss discussions on the subject (football).
Before these question about football, the topic was about Al Green to which Ross deliberately
cuts in order to get the interview in full swing and not of topic (focus on Hardy). The camera
work also is focused on Ross as he leans forward closer to Hardy to get to know Hardy one to
one. This is only possible when the other person feels comfortable with one another which
shows that Rosss introduction has made Hardy feel comfortable with Ross.

Moores & Nicholes

In 2002, Michael Moore released a film exploring the USs gun laws and the effect they had on
school shootings. In one of the first interviews from the film, Moore interviews a man previously

arrested in connection to a bombing in Oklahoma city.This interview that was focused on the
Oklahoma city bombing and featured James Nichols (one of the brothers that was arrested)
started of in a light hearted manner as Moore did not provide the backstory as to why he was
interviewed, it just cuts to Moore on the farm talking to Nichols. This is evident from the
questions that Moore asked such as What do you grow here? and Youre a tofu farmer?. This
shows that Moore wanted to ease Nicholes into the interview and make him feel more confident
and relaxed around Moore. The reason why he uses this light hearted technique is to make
Nichole open up more and tell the truth so Moores can use his information to back up his
statements and his opinions on gun use in America. This is effective because we see as time
goes on the two have build good rapport with one another so that Moore is able to get more
information from Nichols but use it in a way to be interpretative. The use of the light hearted
technique is therefore implemented to then shock audiences as it is set up to seems that
Nichols is a regular, ordinary farmer.
Moore also used investigate questions to find out more about Nichols and what he does now so
he can enhance the audience's understanding on the person in question. Moore achieved this
by asking questions such as Youre a tofu farmer and suggestive comments such as Right. All
natural. The reason moore does this is to allow the audience to understand what nichols does
now for a living compared to his past of being linked to making bombs and being a threat to the
public. He uses suggestive comments to make Nichols feel more confident and feel like moores
is on his side helping him seem more innocent to the public which he claims he is. This allowed
moores to establish a good rapport with Nicols hoping to get more information out of him.
After the introduction of the interview, a montage is shown in order to enhance the audience's
understanding this is done by talking about the background of James Nichol, his brother Terry
Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. In the montage, a statement is made that states But the feds
didnt have to goods on James so the charges were dropped. This suggests to the audience
that James was linked and did play a role in the Oklahoma bombing but due to the lack of
evidence, he got a away with it. This manipulates the audience thoughts into thinking that
James is guilty of the bombing which means he could still pose a threat to the public if left to be.
This is very effective as without it we wouldnt interpret James as crazed or dangerous as the
interview manipulates us to do. As a result we begin to judge Nichols becuase Moore being the
voice of god or leader of the film, we tend to agree with the way he puts across the view and by
including this montage we sway to believe his viewpoint which is that there should be more
restrictions on guns.
Moore then goes on to ask Did Timothy McVeigh ever stay here? after the video tape. This is a
suggestive question that is asked by Moores to enhance the audience's understanding as
Moores has carried out research before producing this documentary which means he must
know that McVeigh did stay with James. The reason Moores asked this question was to make
James say it so the audience will believe it as James knows more about the 2 of them and the
bombing compared to Moore's. The style in which Moore's asked this question also indicates
that he knows McVeigh has stayed with Nicholes as Moore's used the word Ever. This shows

that Moore's knows McVeigh didnt stay at Nicole's house often but has been there and stayed
over with Nichols for a significant period of time.
Moores then asks Decent guy? which James replies to with Oh yeah which is used to get the
thoughts that James had of McVeigh even though he bombed a shopping centre that killed
many people. This shows the type of person that James is and the types of people he
associates himself with which further suggests that James is guilty as well.
The next shot was of Moors asking more investigative questions to James to find out more
information of his connections with the Oklahoma city bombing. An example of the types of
questions he asked is So they didn't find anything from this farm? and Any kind of
explosives?. These questions are asked to suggest that James was linked with the bombing
and helped the other two. The open questions allow James to elaborate on his reasons for his
answer that would allow the audience and Moores to gather more information and figure out if
he was telling the truth and being honest. The reason Moores asked about this farm was
because this is where the other two stayed as well and must have carried out the attack from
the farm which gives James the opportunity to join in with them and use explosive materials that
can be found on the farm to make the bombs.
After these questions, the interview goes indoors where more questions are asked about
Jamess past and current situations. During this section of the interview, there are a few sound
bites which are used to benefit Moore's side of the argument. The first two sound bites goes
from James answering a question to James answering another question without the question
being shown. This manipulates the audience into thinking that James is opening up about
everything and he is giving all this information without Moores asking him anything even though
this is not the case. The third soundbite of this section is used to show a close up James face to
show his reaction to the statements being made and the questions asked by Moores. This
would not be possible in real time as the camera would not be able to zoom in, in an instant and
the zoom back out, this is only possible during the editing process.
In the next section, Moores directly asks questions that are linked with the Oklahoma city
bombing which are very suggestive. An example of this is Do you believe it was right to blow up
the building in Oklahoma city? which was then followed by a pause, then Moores continued to
say I'm not saying you did it. I'm just saying The pause was James thinking if Moores was
suggesting that he also carried out the attack but that's why Moore's continued to say that he's
not saying it was him but in a suggestive way that makes the audience feel that James was part
of it. To this question, James starts of by replying saying no, no. No, no, no. The repetitiveness
of his answer suggests that he is nervous and possibly lying as well as giving him time to think
of a suitable answer that would get him out of the question. He achieves this by switching the
question from where he believed it was right or wrong to the reasons behind the bombing that
would make him look innocent to certain people as well as making the attackers seem like they
did a good deed.

This interview was effective as it retrieved more information out of Nicholes due to his
suggestive questions and his light hearted approach which made Nicholes more comfortable
and open towards Moores. The fact Moores had the power of editing also helped support his
opinions of the situation. The weakness would be the fact that Moore's has used editing to
manipulate the truth and the statements Nichols was making. This is due to the soundbites
where Moore's seems to have paired up different questions with answers to another question to
support his point. In other words, this interview is effective and successful due to Moores
manipulatives editing.

Heston & Moores

Moores went on to interview Charlton Heston who was the president and spokesman of the
NRA from 1998 until 2003 when he resigned. For this interview, Moores didn't pre organise the
interview and instead, went straight to Heston's house and rung the bell. He told Heston through
the intercom Listen, I was wondering if maybe I could talk to you. Were making a documentary
about the whole gun issue. And i'm a member of the NRA. I thought maybe we could talk a little
bit about it. This sentence was effective and Moores manipulated his sentence in order to cover
up what the interview was actually focusing on about made it out ot Heston as if it was about the
NRA membership. Being manipulative worked in Moore's favour as he got himself an interview
for his documentary.
Moores wanted to make Heston feel comfortable with him which will allow Heston to open and
up provide more information for Moore's program making it more special and more appealing to
the audience. He achieved this by stating at the start of the interview that he was a lifetime
member of the NRA (building a rapport) and shows Heston his membership card for proof (to
show Heston he's not lying). Another reason for informing Heston of his lifetime membership
was to smoothly start of the conversation off about guns so he can go into more depth later on
about gun crime and Heston's views on having gun. During this section, Light hearted music is
played in the background in a sarcastic manner which livens up the atmosphere. Using the
membership as a starting point, Moores then asked I assume you have guns in the house
here? followed by So you have them for protection?. Moores asked these suggestive and
simple question to show that Moores has done his research about Heston and knows enough to
verify the information that Heston says in the interview which grows the audience's confidence
in the interview. These questions are also investigative as they are used to inform the viewers
and back up Moore's background research with the statements that Heston himself says which
is more reliable.
Moores then asks Have you ever been a victim of crime? which Moores knows the answer to
this question but still asks as he wants Heston to say it, which the audience would find more
trustworthy. He then asks Never been assaulted or? to which Heston also replies no. This
question is both suggestive and closed. Moores uses these suggestive questions to make
Heston give short answers so he can get straight to the point. Both Moores and the audience
know Heston is not in any danger as he lives in a locked estate and would have guards if he

was or has been in danger. This shows that the guns Heston has is for being flamboyant to his
visitors and to show his wealth. Heston says Well, If you really needed a weapon for selfdefence, you need it loaded. which shows Heston has no intention to use his guns for hunting.
The purpose of Hestons guns are for self-protection which is not the reason why guns are
permitted. Guns in the USA are permitted for hunting purposes.
Moores decides to bring in his background research he carried out. He says But we went to
Canada and theres seven million guns in million homes followed by Canada is a nation of
hunters they don't kill each other at the level we kill each other. Moores asks this question as
Canada is a country right next to the USA in North America with similar laws, yet they have a
drastically lower death toll than the USA. This question was supposed to let Heston think about
the huge number difference and realise that there is a serious issue in the USA while informing
the audience of the facts and the background information. Instead of admitting that something
has to be done about the number of deaths in the USA, heston replies with I think American
history.uh...has a lot of blood on its hands. This is said to try and use the history of America
the cause of its current violence. The uh shows that Heston is thinking of an excuse to try and
clear the tension in the air.
Later on, Moores says They're all violent people and while saying this, there is a slight
inflection in his voice to try and get the truthful answer out of Heston. After this point, Heston
says Well, it's an interesting point, which can be explored and you're good to explore it at great
lengths, but i think that about all i have to say on it which shows Heston is rounding up the topic
and he doesnt want to speak about it anymore and doesn't want to give anymore answers.
At the end of the interview, Moores asks You dont think it's okay? to which heston doesn't reply
and walks of into his house where Moore's cannot go as Heston has not given him permission.
This is a direct question as Moore's is asking for Heston's opinion in order to inform the
audience what Heston's opinions are towards showing up to gun event after a serious violent
act has taken places which involves gun and the loss of lives. Moores finally says Mr Heston,
just one more thing. This is who she is or was. This is her. Mr Heston, please dont leave, Mr
Heston, Please, take a look at her. This is the girl. This ends the interview of in a unfinished way
which paints Heston in a bad light as if he was not feeling guilty or did not feel he is in the
wrong, he would have stayed and finished the interview off properly by answering all Moores
questions but the fact he left it unfinished and walked off without listening to Moore's shows he
feels guilty and has been a bad influence. Due to the fact he walked away from the picture of
the young female that had past away, it shows Heston as being cold hearted.
Winding up the interview, in the ending video tape, Moores says I left the Heston estate at the
top of Beverly Hills and walked back into the real world, an America living and breathing in
fear Moores is informing the viewers that Heston has been a major influence in the lack of
gun control in the US which has caused all these problems and produces fear in America. But
due to Heston's wealth, he can stay away safe in his large house away from all the shooting and
killing that is going on as a result of his actions.

The strength of this interview is that Moore's has managed to bring his point across very well
and this interview has been entirely effective only because Moores has been given the power of
editing and therefore the flaw so to speak is that it isnt the truth. It is the manipulated truth that
Moores has created to prove his point, support his opinion and his make his documentary
successful.
Marilyn Manson & Moores
Moores investigates an american musician, songwriter, actor, painter, multimedia artist and
former music journalist due to the criticisms he has faced as a result of the type of music he
produces. The public believe that it was Manson's music style (rock) which influenced the
shooter at the high school that led to the death of 15 students and teachers.
At the start, during the videotape, Moores included a news anchor which stated that Manson
had cancelled the last 5 days of his tour in respect of the columbine shooting. Manson also
stated that artists like him (producers of rock music) are not to blame for violent acts. This is
used to paint Manson in a good light to the viewers and promote him as a good person. It is also
an effective statement as it shows Manson is sympathetic towards the situation and can
understand the public's feeling which also supports the fact that Manson is a good person.
Before the interview began, there was a video tape that was played which outlined the basic
information about why Marilyn Manson is involved in the school shooting. During the videotape,
a news report is also included which showed the hate the population of Denver had towards
Manson which make the viewers more curious about why the public hate Manson and this is the
point where moore's brings in the interview by saying There were protests from the leigious
right. But i thought id go and talk with him myself. This already suggests to the audience that
Manson may have not been that influential to the killers as Moores has not said anything bad
about him yet even though Moores has carried out his background research which is obvious by
the news anchor. Moores has a sarcastic tone when he says this which also suggests that
Moore's feels the protests are not justified and should not happen as he feels Manson is not in
the wrong.
A section of the video is a speech from the religious rights which goes ...all who hear Manson
tomorrow night will go out and commit violent acts. The answer is no But does everybody who
watches a Lexus ad go and buy a lexus? No. But a few do. This is an example of juxtaposition
for the religious rights as they are comparing to unrelated ways of promotion. A lexus ad is
displayed to promote a Lexus vehicle whereas Manson's music is used to promote himself and
his band so more people buy his albums, it is not used to promote violence.
During the interview, Manson asks a question which he then answers himself to allow the
audience to understand his opinion and feelings towards this situation. He asks ...we forgot
about.The president was shooting bombs overseas, yet im a bad guy because I sing some
rocknroll songs. And whos a bigger influence, the president or Marilyn Manson? id like to think
myself, but im gonna go with the president. This is a key question as no one made a point
about the political issues going on around the world which is being broadcasted on the news all

the time about wars and fights, but everyone blamed Manson due to the genre of music he
plays. This is also used to inform the viewers about the political issue that were taking place at
the time to allow them to take into account all the other possible influences for the shooting.
Moores then follows up after Manson with The day that Columbine happened the United States
dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other time during the war?. This shows that Moore's
is actively listening to Manson's statements and then he has used his background research to
back up Manson by stating more facts (open body language and lower positions compared to
Manson also shows active listening). Using facts is a major strength as the viewers are more
likely to believe their statements and understand the scale of the situation which the public have
overseen.
Mansons ends the interview by saying I wouldnt say a single word to them. I would listen to
what they have to say. And thats what no one did. This statement can be interpreted into
Manson being an understanding and nice guy which shows hes not guilty of the allegations
against him. Even after all these issues, Manson is being the bigger man and listening to the
public instead of accusing more people for the incident.
One limitation is that Moore's did not show any evidence that the shooter actually listened to
Manson which could have either benefited Manson or worked against him, depending on
whether they listened to Manson or not. Another limitation of this interview would be that
Moore's didnt interview any of the public on their opinions on why they are accusing Manson as
being an influence towards the shooting and what they feel about the acts of war that was
occurring at the same time as the shooting.
Conclusion
The interviews from Bowling for Columbine are different to the newsnight interview and the
Jonathan Ross interview. This is due to the fact that Moores has used editing to manipulate the
footage from the interviews and present it in his documentary in a way that makes his opinion
correct. The reason this is done is to achieve the goal of the documentary which is to show to
the viewers that the gun laws in America are too relaxed which has resulted in all these
shootings and unnecessary deaths. These interviews are informal and pre recorded at various
different locations which allows for the elliptical editing by moores. The fact it is pre recorded
has allowed Moores to add in archive footage and voice overs to give the audience a quick
summary and background information about the interviewee just before each interview.
On the other hand, the Newsnight interview is very formal and broadcasted live in their studio.
This allows no cutting away of footage in the way of editing but only multi-camera mixing as the
editing technique. This makes the interview more interesting as you get more angels to view the
interview from which stops the audience from losing interest. As this interview is live, nothing
can be scripted as the audience would notice any scripting that would result in the loss of
viewers. There is also cut away footage which allows the audience to watch/observe the whole
interview which allows for no manipulation like Moore's achieved in Bowling for Columbine. Just
like the introduction video tapes for the interviews in Bowling for columbine, there is an

introductory report that is played before the interview begins but it is biased like the video tapes
used in Bowling For Columbine.
Finally, the interview between Jonathan Ross and Tom Hardy has a complete different purpose
of promotion which is formal and informal. This interview occurred live in front of an audience in
a studio but the video version that is broadcasted and released after the live interview has taken
place has been edited. This interview uses the same technique of multi-camera editing but
unlike Newsnight, there is elliptical editing due to the fact some of the interview would be
unnecessary and could potentially lose the audience's interest. This is why some clips are
edited out using soundbites and crowd noise to cover up joints. As this interview is not
completely formal, the loose of some footage is not a huge issue as usually the edited out
sections dont contain any vital information of what you would find in a formal interview like
Newsnight and Bowling for Columbine.