Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/304

 22 -623.

The English press has equally well satirized the social interview in proposing a series to be called “ Half-hours with Nobodies ” and “ Ten Minutes with Persons of No Importance,” 27 — a satire

thatmay have had a basis of fact in the series entitled “ Celebri ties at Home" that its editor believed to be one of the most attractive features of The World .28 It must be evident that the interview from the very terms de scribing it has lacked authoritativeness, - it is most often char

acterized as prepared, inspired , repudiated, disavowed , sup pressed, edited, officially denied , faked, padded , or a space-filler. The interview must also be questioned by reason of its source.

The politician may use the interview to conceal his real opinions, or if he inadvertently expresses them, he may repudiate the inter

view. The author may readily grant an interview, but refuse to have it published as “ it is taking the bread out of his mouth ." The society leader may be anxious to give an interview , butmay have nothing to say. The actor or professional musician may

welcome the interview as a gratifying form of advertisement. The criminal may give a series of interviews allmutually contra dictory. Persons who do not effusively welcome an interview are often described as snobs and aristocrats in return for the cool

reception accorded the interviewer, and social climbers may be helped up by the publicity given by aspiring interviewers. Those from whom interviews are specially desired are unwilling to

concede them and the views of those willing or anxious to grant The interview is distrusted because of its form. It is given in the first person singular, but the interviewer takes no notes since " to use a note- book is to destroy the freedom of expression of the person attacked .” The result in print, even when the interviewer has been most conscientious and has had the memory of a Ma caulay, can scarcely , for the purposes of the historian , be con sidered an exact reproduction either of the language or of the opinions of the person interviewed. The dislike of both parties to

the interview is probably best explained in saying that neither

one realizes that the interview is not an address, a speech, or an 27 A. W. à Beckett, The Modern Adam, p. 189. 28 E. Yates, Recollections and Experiences, II, 330 - 333.