If you watch 60 Minutes and many other shows of the same type you’ll see a common interviewing technique. Ask a strong question. Wait for the answer. If it’s a short one, don’t respond to the answer. Don’t show any real reaction at all, just look at them, as if waiting for the rest. Many subjects, unable to stand the silence, will instinctively start filling it in, expounding more on their short answer. This increases the odds they’ll say something interesting. I’ve tried this at random times, and if the person isn’t ready for it, it nearly always works.
Of course, public figures are ready for it. They become adept at being equally blank after their answer has been given. So you see footage like George Bush saying “no”, and then 10 seconds of his face with nothing happening, while the viewer fills in their own interpretation of what they think George Bush is thinking. So there’s no way to win. Either you keep talking, which you don’t want to do, or your non-reaction becomes the focus. Why do I bring this up?
In Sundays New York Times, we were treated to this gem in a piece on Howard Dean.
So a string of questions are answered with a fresh, yet telling, caution:
Should Al Gore get into the race? “I’ve never discussed that with him, and I don’t plan to. My bailiwick is to stay out of that stuff.†(Mr. Gore, of course, endorsed Mr. Dean four years ago.) After 26 seconds of silence, he changes the subject and asks his lunch guests, “Coffee, strawberry shortcake, anybody?â€
After 26 seconds of silence? Why is the interviewer (Jeff Zeleny) just sitting there for 26 seconds? What is it that Mr. Dean was supposed to do? Jeff tried an old trick, and it failed. Strangely, instead of just moving on, he wrote up his failure on the front page, and spun it as a new caution. There’s just no way to win.