Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/305



essay, but " an affair of two," — if either of the two fails in collab

oration, the interview is a failure.29 National prejudices doubtless account for much of the repug nance expressed for the interview. Much as the European press has ridiculed or condemned the interview, apparently because of its reputed American origin , it has adopted it, but in doing so it has varied somewhat its general characteristics. The interviewer thus becomes committed, perhaps unconsciously, to the type of interview characteristic of his own country and he defends it with a vigor equalled only by that with which he condemns the

formsused in other countries.30 The interview is distrusted because of the frank avowal of

journalists that the paramount idea of the interviewer should be to make an interesting story. While recognizing that the cut-and

dried, question -and-answer form of interview would probably be

more authoritative on the side of information and definite facts, the journalist finds it dull and tedious and he considers that

“ the interview is a subtle, artistic piece of writing .” The points of view of journalist and of historian must necessarily differ if to the one “ generally speaking, the importance of the interview is

gauged by the information it contains," while to the other the

accuracy of the information must be a prime factor ; they must differ, if to the one the interview “ is a mental picture, a full

length portrait, a personal interpretation,” while to the historian the personal interpretation of the interviewer seems negligible. The interview is distrusted because the interviewer is sometimes sent out without reference to his special qualifications for the task, - a careless assignment may absolutely impeach the trust

worthiness of what, under more favorable conditions,might have been an acceptable interview. The interviewer is sometimes bumptious and reports his own preconceived ideas as those of the

person interviewed.31 In the eyes of the citizen of the world, the 29 The subtle characteristics of a good interview are best described by

F. Banfield, “ Interviewing in Practice,” National Review , November, 1895, 26 : 367 - 378.

30 Edward Dowden, in “ The 'Interviewer ' Abroad,” ridicules the inter views of French authors given by M. Huret and published under the title Enquête sur l'évolution littéraire. — Fortnightly Review, November, 1891, n. s. 50 : 719 - 733.

31, peculiarly flagrant illustration of the distorted interview was given wide publicity by the press in December, 1918. Two distinguished English