When Interviews or public conference causes problems for those presents for saying what's in their mind which reflects what's in most other peoples mind as well as becoming a Waste of Public’s Time: The Responsibility of Media Personalities to Ask Better Questions

 When Interviews or public conference causes problems for those presents for saying what's in their mind which reflects what's in most other peoples mind as well as becoming a Waste of Public’s Time: The Responsibility of Media Personalities to Ask Better Questions

Journalism Should Do More Than Fill Airtime or just create dramas that'll remain in debate for a time.

Interviews are one of the most powerful tools available to the media. A well-conducted interview can expose corruption, reveal hidden facts, challenge powerful people, clarify public confusion and force decision-makers to explain their actions.

But not every interview achieves these objectives.

Sometimes, a significant public figure is invited onto a television programme, radio show, podcast or online platform, and the interviewer spends valuable time asking questions whose answers are already obvious. The guest gives predictable responses, the interviewer moves to another predictable question, and the audience spends 30 minutes listening without learning anything substantially new.

Sometimes the question are very unthoughtful and meaningless.

This raises an important question: Are some media personalities wasting the public's time, giving false hopes by failing to ask meaningful questions?

Journalism is not simply about having a microphone, sitting across from an important person and asking whatever comes to mind. It is about seeking information that matters.

A journalist's responsibility should be to represent the curiosity, concerns and interests of the public.

The Interviewer Is Supposed to Ask What the Public Wants to Know.

A good journalist should constantly ask: What does the public not know that they need to know?

That question should guide the interview.

If a government official is being interviewed about a controversial policy, the journalist should not spend most of the interview asking questions that allow the official to repeat the same press statement already released.

Instead, the interviewer should dig deeper.

What led to the decision?

Who recommended it?

How much will it cost?

Who benefits?

Who loses?

What alternatives were considered?

What evidence supports the policy?

What happens if it fails?

Who will be held responsible?

When should citizens expect results?

These questions can transform an ordinary interview into an important public examination.

Asking Questions Everyone Already Knows the Answers To.

There is nothing wrong with asking simple questions when they establish context. The problem begins when an entire interview consists of predictable questions and predictable answers.

For example, asking a politician, "Do you want development in the country?" will almost certainly produce a predictable answer.

Who is going to say no?

A more useful question would be:

"Your administration promised to improve electricity supply. What specific targets have been achieved, what targets have failed, why has it continuously failed, what different approach are you thinking of and what is responsible for the difference?"

The second question demands information.

Similarly, asking a public official or personel, "Are you concerned about unemployment?" may produce a long speech about concern.

A better question would be:

"How many sustainable jobs has your programme actually created, how were those jobs measured, and how much public money was spent per job?"

That is the difference between asking a question and conducting journalism.

The Public Deserves Questions That Produce Answers.

The audience is not merely watching the interviewer's personality.

People are watching because they want information.

A good interview should leave viewers saying:

"I didn't know that before."

It should clarify something.

It should expose something.

It should challenge something.

It should provide evidence.

It should make the audience understand an issue better.

Sometimes the most important information is hidden behind an obvious question.

A journalist may ask a government official why a project has been delayed. The official may blame funding.

The journalist should then ask:

"How much money was originally allocated, how much has been released, how much has been spent, and what documents can confirm these figures?"

Now the interview becomes investigative.

The first question opens the door. The follow-up question searches the room.

Follow-Up Questions Are Extremely Important

One of the biggest weaknesses in many interviews is the failure to ask follow-up questions.

A guest gives an interesting or questionable answer, and instead of challenging it, the interviewer immediately moves to another topic.

This can allow public figures to avoid difficult questions simply by giving broad answers.

Suppose a guest says:

"We have invested billions into the project."

The interviewer should not simply respond:

"Okay. My next question is..."

The natural follow-up should be:

"How much exactly?"

Then:

"Where was the money spent?"

Then:

"Can the public see the records?"

Then:

"What measurable result has that spending produced?"

Each answer can lead to another question.

That is how meaningful interviews uncover information.

Journalism Should Not Become a Public Relations Exercise.

There is a danger when interviews become too comfortable for the guest.

A media platform should not merely become a place where politicians, business people, celebrities or government officials come to promote themselves.

An interview should allow a guest to explain their position, but it should also test their claims.

If a guest says something that contradicts available evidence, the journalist should ask about the contradiction.

If the guest makes a promise, the journalist should ask when it will happen.

If the guest takes credit for an achievement, the journalist should establish what exactly they contributed.

If the guest blames someone else, the journalist should ask for evidence.

This does not mean journalists should be hostile.

Tough journalism is not the same as disrespectful journalism.

A journalist can be respectful while still asking extremely difficult questions.

The Difference Between a Popular Interview and a Useful Interview.

Some interviews become popular because they contain arguments, jokes, controversy or emotional moments.

Popularity is not necessarily the same thing as public value.

An interview can generate millions of views while contributing very little useful information.

Conversely, an interview containing dry but important questions about public finances, infrastructure, education, healthcare, security or economic policy may receive fewer views but provide enormous value to society.

The media should therefore consider not only:

"How many people watched?"

but also:

"What did people learn?"

That second question is critical.

Journalists Should Prepare Before Interviews.

Good interviews rarely happen by accident.

Preparation matters.

Before interviewing a guest, journalists should research the person's statements, responsibilities, history, decisions, previous interviews and available evidence.

They should know enough about the subject to recognise when a guest is avoiding a question.

A poorly prepared interviewer can be easily controlled by an experienced public figure.

The guest gives a rehearsed answer, changes the subject and moves on.

A prepared journalist notices the diversion and brings the conversation back.

Preparation therefore protects the public from empty answers.

Stop Being Afraid of the Difficult Follow-Up.

Sometimes journalists appear reluctant to interrupt a guest who has avoided answering a question.

But politely returning to the question is part of the job.

"That's not quite what I asked. My question was..."

can be one of the most important sentences in an interview.

The journalist is not being rude.

The journalist is ensuring that the audience receives an answer.

If a guest refuses to answer, that refusal itself can become relevant information.

The journalist can say:

"So, to be clear, you are declining to provide the figure?"

That creates accountability.

The Public Is the Real Client.

Media organisations may have owners, advertisers, sponsors and commercial interests, but journalism has a broader social responsibility.

The public spends its time consuming news and interviews.

That time has value.

If a journalist spends an hour interviewing a decision-maker, that hour cannot be recovered by the audience.

Therefore, the interview should justify the audience's attention.

People should not finish an interview wondering why they watched it.

They should finish it with a clearer understanding of the issue.

The Best Questions Often Begin With "Why," "How," "When" and "What Evidence"

Questions that demand explanation are often more valuable than questions that simply invite public-relations statements.

Instead of:

"Are you committed to solving the problem?"

Ask:

"How exactly will you solve it?"

Instead of:

"Do you think the policy is working?"

Ask:

"What evidence demonstrates that the policy is working?"

Instead of:

"Will the project be completed?"

Ask:

"What is the completion date, what percentage has been completed and what could prevent that deadline from being met?"

Instead of:

"Are you concerned about corruption?"

Ask:

"What specific safeguards have you introduced to prevent the misuse of public funds?"

These questions create opportunities for facts.

Journalism Can Help Society Make Better Decisions.

A strong media interview can influence public understanding.

A citizen deciding whether to support a policy, trust an institution, vote for a candidate or understand a national problem needs information.

Journalists can help provide that information.

But if interviews are dominated by predictable questions, society loses an important opportunity.

The media can either help citizens understand complex issues or contribute to confusion by giving people more speeches without enough scrutiny.

The choice depends heavily on the quality of the questions.

This Is Not an Attack on All Media Personalities in Nigeria.

Criticising poor interviewing should not be interpreted as an attack on journalists generally.

Many journalists work under difficult conditions and conduct excellent interviews.

The point is that the profession itself must continuously improve. But when the professions improvements is determined by other professionals outside the country and our journalists don't learn about journalism abroad then it becomes a waste of effort.

Take the recent NBA conference for instance, the lady asked very great questions. And the answers given by the man called Very Dark Black Man VDM were very great only for the Representative of the millitary to take it personal. Instead of them to admit there are bad eggs in their system and their are good ones in thesame system she said if all military are corrupt then all NBA are as well corrupt. Ofcourse we know some of the NBA are corrupt also. Otherwise cases will not be moved from one court to the other and get a different judgement.

Police is inviting VDM to provide evidence to his claim that police serves as informants to bandits and thieves, what evidence can they possibly get from him when they're supposed to ask Nigerians who are a witness to this to give their account. My late dad was attacked while travelling between kaduna and birnin gwari some years back. In his narration, they just passed a checking point not upto a kilometer before armed men attacked their vehicle. The driver was shot trying to turn back. The car was severely sprayed but out of 4 that were inside. Only the driver was killed. How wont the police know about this. Both sides of the road was blocked, wont the police notice that something must have happened for cars to stop passing, how can they not hear the sound of gun firing a kilometer away in an open field around rocks where rocks are supposed to amplify the sound. This is just one example and this is been long. Inviting VDM to prove his statement makes it more glaring that the force is either concealing their failure or intentionally misleading the public space.

A lot of Army died in the battle against insurgents, but the Army failed to acknowledge that information are carried from the Army to the insurgents to be able to carry out an Ambush.

Journalists should be encouraged to research more, question more deeply, verify claims and follow up on incomplete answers.

Media houses should also invest in investigative journalism and journalist training rather than measuring success purely by entertainment value, audience numbers or viral clips.

Conclusion: Ask Questions That Matter

The microphone is not merely a symbol of access.

This is why most people are now independent journalists trying so hard to report things as they are but some see it as a way to sway public opinion or make money. This are the failure of the journalists and media houses in the country.

It is a responsibility.

When a journalist gets an opportunity to question a minister, politician, business leader, security official, academic, celebrity or other influential person, that opportunity belongs partly to the public.

The journalist should therefore ask questions that ordinary people need answers to.

Ask what people cannot easily find out.

Ask about the money.

Ask about the evidence.

Ask about the numbers.

Ask who is responsible.

Ask what went wrong.

Ask what happens next.

Ask the follow-up question.

Challenge contradictions.

Demand clarity.

Most importantly, do not waste the audience's time asking questions simply because they are easy to ask.

A good interview should not merely give a powerful person another opportunity to speak.

It should give the public an opportunity to learn.

The quality of journalism is often reflected in the quality of the questions being asked.

And sometimes, the most important contribution a journalist can make to society is simply to ask the question everyone should have been asking.

A useful next step for media platforms would be to develop a simple “public-interest interview” standard: every major interview should aim to produce facts, explanations, accountability or previously unknown information not merely conversation.