Archive: Opinions

Political season is a mixed bag for me.  The bad news is that with all the interviews I have to transcribe I have to spend countless extra hours beating up my keyboard and suffering the debilitating back, neck, and hand pain that result.  But the good news is that I get to sit across from the candidates in person, look in their eyes and have a conversation with them, a privilege that most voters don't enjoy.

I really enjoy these interviews.  My routine is to chat for a while before turning on the recorder, to get a sense of the person and put candidates at ease -- I get better answers when they are at ease.  But sometimes I put them too much at ease, so I like to tell them that if I was just so darned charming that they forgot they were talking to an evil member of the press, they can say 'don't use that' and I won't.  Then I like to chat a bit afterwards... I've gotten some of the best background information in these off the record conversations that inform my understanding of local issues and help me to write as fairly as possible.

I can tell you it really stinks when they do say 'don't use that', because they usually want me to not use the juiciest piece of news!  But I said I wouldn't use it and I won't.

The big thing is talking in person and trying to figure out what the candidates are about.  Even when they are at ease they're going to tell me what they want me to hear, especially the more experienced ones.  And really, I'm not that charming!  So, as I am typing their replies to my questions I wonder what is campaign spin, even when they seemed perfectly earnest during the interview, and what, exactly the 'rest of the story' really is.   Still, sitting in the same room having a conversation is probably the best way to scope that sort of thing out.

In the past I have had interviews with candidates who sounded perfectly reasonable when I spoke to them, but turned out to not have a clue what they were talking about when I played back the recording.  I guess the difference is that I have to pay greater attention to every word when transcribing an interview.  By the way, that didn't happen this week with any of the five candidates I spoke with.  They all struck me the same way in person as they did during the playback.

In some ways the off the record parts before and after the formal interview are the most telling.  We talk about anything, and it gives me insight into the candidate and lets me see them as a person.  That is important because we see our leaders as their functions -- a sheriff, a judge -- but not really as people in the course of performing their duties.  I suppose that is good, especially for law enforcement officers and judges, because people seeing them as authority figures makes doing their jobs easier.

Ultimately what candidates tell me determines how I vote myself when I go to the polls.  I have often walked into interviews feeling sure I knew whether or not I intended to vote for the candidate, and they have changed my mind,one way or the other.

I have always felt that the '10 Questions' format is a way I can share the privilege of speaking directly to the candidates with you.  I type out the questions before hand, but do not reveal them until the interviews.  Each candidate for the same position gets the same questions.  Their answers are unique.  And comparing the different answers to the same questions should help a lot in deciding which candidate you agree with and want to vote for.

Last night, after transcribing two of the longest interviews and working about 12 hours, not even a steaming hot bath could make the pain go away.  But who said democracy isn't painful?  It's just part of the sacrifice we have to make for our freedom.

Wait... was that supposed to be sacrifice or sacroiliac... pain for freedom?

v14i41