It didn't need to be an interview at all. It was more of a waste of time. Many people value clear, succinct communication. To this kind of person, a rambling interview which could be encapsulated in one sentence is a waste of time.
> Back when I worked in Detroit, we were an RE20 station. And a lot of on-air talent — and we get a little bit of this here at NPR — likes to sound a little bit more authoritative, and they hit the microphone into the flat position to get that bassy sound. In Detroit, we used epoxy to hold all of the switches into a position so that couldn’t happen again. And, honestly, we do see that occasionally here. We’ll hear something bassy and we’ll run up to the studio and, sure enough, somebody switched it.
> Over the past 10 years, you see more computer screens throughout every broadcast plant. And often that microphone is real close to the computer screen: Depending on how close, you can actually hear some of the electronic interference off the computer screen. The computer screen is the big issue. If it is just a little too close to that microphone, your voice is reflecting off of it.
These sorts of anecdotes were selected from this engineer's mass of experience because of the natural, free-flowing form of an interview, and the informed interviewer's knowledge of the field.
Demanding everything be reduced down to a sentence or two of instruction – much less calling it a waste of time – completely misses the point of this form of communication.
> These sorts of anecdotes were selected from this engineer's mass of experience because of the natural, free-flowing form of an interview, and the informed interviewer's knowledge of the field.
The saddest thing is, informed interviewers are rare these days :(
