The Interview

…are far better interview shows, in my opinion. I enjoyed Lulu Garcia-Navarro on NPR for many years, but in The Interview, I feel her style is sometimes so aggressive that it reads as judgmental of her subjects at best, and rude to them at worst. Additionally, both she and David Marchese refer to themselves far too often in interviewing than any interviewer should, in my opinion. (They have both been interviewed multiple times themselves in other places…that is sufficient.) Finally, these interviews often lack focus. This week’s interview with Danny McBride had him rattling on about church in his youth (did they ever talk about his book?) so I turned it off less than halfway through. Talk Easy and Fresh Air are so much more enjoyable in style, and present more authentic audio portraits of famous people. For book recommendations, I look to the New Yorker and NPR’s Book of the Day.

Lulu is one of the best interviewers ever. Her probing questions, pushes and follow ups aim to create a balanced, nuanced, fair interview that goes beyond what you typically see in news. This interview w Mr Pelley was so compelling. Thank you for this…

I have been surprised at how much I’ve enjoyed this podcast. The interviews with Tucker Carlson and Graham Platner were particularly fascinating and illuminating.

I’ve listened to almost every episode. I really like this show, but the interviews that Lulu leads inevitably end up with this aggressive tone. Even when the guests seem to agree with her she sets them up for these gotcha questions that feel like cheap shots. I enjoy hearing push back and truly like that this show asks ‘hard hitting questions’, but the way she does it feels blind siding to the guest and frankly lacks tact. Getting people to open up publicly is an art and simply bulldozing them does not make for good journalism.

I have listened to this podcast twice — its debut and the most recent interview with Tilda Swinton. In both instances, the interviewer, David Marchese, seems to confuse solipsism with insight. As a result, the interviews are shallow, at times fawning, and manage to make otherwise fascinating people unforgivably boring. Like the pretentious videos that illustrate each episode, these are beneath the Times’s standards — a podcast without an apparent reason for being, other than leveraging the Times’s unparalleled access, which it then squanders.

I’ve listened to the interviews with Nancy Pelosi and Vince Vaughn. In both, the interviewer is insulting. In the case of Pelsosi, the tone of Garcia-Navarro is crass, smug, and she is disagreeable to the point of interrupting Pelosi several times. When she doesn’t agree with the answer Pelosi gives, she almost attacks her. In the case of Vaughn, Marchese insults him from the beginning- assuming Vaughn is as simple-minded as some of the characters he plays. When Vaughn wants to make the interview more of a meaningful conversation, Marchese pushes back, despite asking Vaughn very personal questions. Thankfully, Vaughn continues to share meaningful experiences that anyone could relate to, only to have Marchese wrap up the interview with “This is easily the weirdest celebrity interview of all time now”. (???) In general, the audience tends to listen to interviews because they like the person being interviewed- they don’t want to hear them being belittled, interrupted, and offended by the interviewer.