Terry Gross on interviewing Colin Firth 2001

Every day, millions of National Public Radio listeners metaphorically open their windows to take in another deep breath of "Fresh Air," the nationally syndicated program about the arts, culture and society hosted by Terry Gross.

Q (Thomas Kunkel): What's your process for choosing a guest?

TG: We have to believe that someone has a gift, or has the ability to analyze their art, or can at least tell some good anecdotes. Being famous isn't good enough. Some listeners think we're enamored of celebrity. But it's not about that. Those of us who work on the show love movies, books, music. And some great performers and writers become celebrities, and they end up being on the show, if we can get them. But it's not about being attracted to fame. In fact, fame tends to make people much more guarded and difficult to interview We've turned down a lot of very famous people, either because we didn't think they were very talented or because we were convinced they had absolutely nothing to say. /.../

Q: Well, let's say you've decided on somebody - this morning you interviewed the actor Colin Firth.

TG: OK, a good example. I hadn't really seen him in that much. Monique Nazareth, one of our producers, is this huge fan of his. My attitude was, convince me. And she did. I mean, she queued up clips of scenes of three of his movies that I hadn't seen. She had read Bridget Jones' Diary and was a big fan of that. I had not. And she made a really good case. Then I read a bunch of clips about him and I thought, yeah, he's intelligent too. He's going to have something to say. /.../

Q: Given the technical clarity of your interviews, most people would assume that all your guests are sitting right across the table from you. But I read that in 19 cases out of 20, they're actually in studios in other cities.

TG: Yes.

Q: Isn't that terribly difficult? I mean, part of the appeal of "Fresh Air" is that these really do come across as intimate conversations. But it's hard to have an intimate conversation when you don't have the person there to react to facial expressions or moods or nuances. Yet clearly you overcome that.

TG: Well, the good thing about not being able to react to facial expressions is that they would only be going on between me and the guest. The audience wouldn't be in on it. So this way if there's anything the guests want to communicate to me, they can't do it with a facial expression. They have to convey it in words or in the tone of those words. And likewise for me, I can't just kind of smile and let them know that I'm enthusiastic about what they're saying. I have to convey that through my voice. And when things are working well, that means that maybe there's a little more getting conveyed on the air.

I've gotten to the point where I'm kind of almost distracted by the person's presence. When I'm interviewing somebody and I'm looking at my notes, I feel like the person I'm talking to thinks I'm ignoring them or that I'm distracted, and I'm not. I mean, I need those notes. My memory isn't that good. So if I look at the notes, I feel like I'm losing the person. And if I don't look at my notes, I feel like I'm losing my structure. /.../

Q: : One interesting thing about your questioning technique is that you often ask your guests "How did you feel?" when key events happened in their lives.

TG: Here's the thing. I never went to journalism school, but I think that journalists are usually taught not to use words like "feel" when what you're trying to get at is something that's mare objective. But part of what I'm interested in when I'm interviewing somebody is their inner life. So I'm in that murky territory of feeling and perception. That's where I try to go, and that's why the word "feeling" gets used a whole lot. /.../ I often talk to people about their failures. Someone I used to work with once said that he thought I tended to talk to the "dark side" of people. If that's true, I think that's because we're defined at least as much by our failures, the contradictions in our lives, as we are by our successes. And sometimes people misinterpret that line of questioning and think I'm trying to show them up or belittle them in some way I'm not.

Q: : But people are more inclined to talk about their successes than their failures.

TG: Right. That's why I also like to talk to people who have a sense of humor about themselves and can kind of recognize those failures with, you know, with some humor and irony. /.../

TG:I respect somebody's right to privacy. So if the deal is something like they really don't want to talk about their father's death or they just got out of rehab and they really don't want to talk about rehab, that's fine. I can accept that, because, you know, we didn't elect these people to public office. They don't owe us an accounting of every private decision they've made or every emotion that they've had. If there's something in their life that they feel they need to keep private, more power to them.

I'll tell them that if I ask anything too personal, they should let me know and we'll move on to something else. Because I really believe people should have that right to draw a line between one's public and private lives--understanding that that line is probably going to keep shifting from day to day, from interviewer to interviewer. Where we don't accept it is when a publicist tells us that a certain rock star will come on, but they only want to talk about the rain forest or recycling or something. No way. /.../

My theory of interviewing is that whatever you have, use it. If you are confused, use that. If you have raw curiosity, use that. If you have experience, use that. If you have a lot of research, use that. But figure out what it is you have and make it work for you.

Thomas Kunkel is dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland