Spiked

I discard about 10% of the interviews I do. The most common reason why is poor sound quality. (Cordless phones and cell phones are the bane of my existence.) Other reasons include my not asking enough good questions or the guest not giving enough good answers. For the cutoff, all of the above and related reasons involve determinations of degree rather than kind. That's the norm. There's another category of discards, however, a very small group, where the guest may be incoherent, combative, and/or unresponsive. I'm reminded of the famous 'worst interview ever' that David Letterman did in 2009 with Joaquin Phoenix. (If you haven't seen it, you should — it's classic.) There's no reason for an audience to want to listen to such tripe other than academic curiosity and, frankly, such interviews can be disturbing. Some can be deeply disturbing, indeed, because neither the interviewer nor the audience could know for sure how much of the response is cynically affected.

Recently I interviewed a fellow about the Wikileaks situation. A prominent figure, with skin in the game. To be honest, I thought he was psychotic. Since he has a very successful career unrelated to the question of national security leaks it's manifestly clear that he's able to function in certain social situations. Not, however, in serious interviews. I don't know what to think other than that he's not — intentionally or otherwise — what he appears to be. He's somewhat older and it may be that his brain is getting breezy but I strongly suspect that he wants to create a persona that's too misty to pin down, both for public consumption and for any government agencies that might be interested in his doings.

The experience, as I say, was deeply disturbing.