Long-Form Interviews Require Different Prep; Where’s The Media Self-Reflection?

We seem to have shifted from “snackable” content to 12-course meals rather quickly.

It wasn’t long ago that quickly consumed, easily digestible content was the rage. Creators whether in the news business or in marketing departments focused on content, video or prose, that could be consumed in a minute or less. Lots of content even ran with time stamps for how long it would take to ingest.  

These days audience preferences seem to be moving in the opposite direction. All hail the long-form interview!  

Howard Stern really popularized these types of interviews more than three decades ago with his unique style of questioning that led to more candid discussions. Now the combination of podcasts and social media have spawned a growing industry and audience for content that requires 60, 90 or more than 180 minutes to consume.

And the impact can be enormous. Many attribute Donald Trump’s interview with Joe Rogan – the most popular podcaster -- as a key reason he won re-election. Within 24 hours of airing, the 3-hour show garnered more than 26 million views on YouTube. (Yes many podcasts now are both audio and video.) Meanwhile, some have suggested Kamala Harris’ refusal to go on Rogan cost her the election, though I doubt it given his audience demographics.

Over the last year, a growing number of business executives have pushed PR teams to get them on Rogan or other high-profile podcasts such as Acquired, The Tim Ferriss Show and Masters of Scale, to name a few. It’s easy to see why: In March 2024 report by Edison Research found podcasts reach people in every generation with the coveted attributes of higher annual household income and education levels than the broader U.S. population

And though we still love our quick fixes on a daily basis, a growing number of people are seeking deeper learning from long-form podcasts. Nine out of 10 listeners say they listen to learn, according to an April 2023 survey by Pew Research. Perhaps not surprisingly, that same number of people are more likely to trust news discussed on a podcast as much or more than news from other sources including news organizations. (More on this later in this newsletter…)

Given this, it’s not surprising everyone from presidential candidates to CEOs are sitting for longer discussions with key journalistic figures on matters professional and personal. And therein lies the peril.

 What does it take to successfully run his gauntlet? Well a few things come to mind, starting with a strong and objective gating assessment.

 Because let’s be honest: Most business leaders are terrible at media interviews even when they’re just 30 minutes. They’re stiff, too technical, boring, long winded or all of the above. I’d go on but it’s too depressing, and I’ve not even mentioned the many hours of building a prep document most don’t bother to read in advance.

 It takes a special kind of person to sit for a long-form interview. These folks are confident and comfortable in new settings, natural storytellers who weave personal and professional without revealing too much of either, have a broad understanding and perspective about the world and their role in it, and will put in the time to learn about their interviewer so they’re not walking in cold.

In my career, having done the interviewing and the prepping, it’s the rare CEO who meets this description. It’s not a knock; it’s just reality. That’s why it’s important to be straight with those who might not fit the bill, steering them instead toward formats with higher probabilities of success for them and the business goals.

Recall Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Rogan interview where he talked about the need for more masculinity in the workplace. I’m sure that was welcome news to the 44% of Meta’s more than 70,000 employees who identify as female! I’m sure Zuckerberg insisted on doing the show though his overall robotic demeanor would have made him a candidate to weed out in advance.

Zuckerberg on Rogan

Once you’ve found the right candidate, then the prep begins. I recently wrote a LinkedIn post declaring too much message discipline can make people look dumb and out of touch.

That’s true in a short interviews, but it’s really true in longer ones for two big reasons: Not only is it impossible to prep a person on every possible topic, that person is going to look utterly ridiculous if they keep “bridging back” to messages as traditional media training advises.  

Essentially the interviewee is the message. Everything that person does and says or doesn’t do and say will reinforce the overall objective of the interview, which hopefully has been clearly defined in advance.

For example, if the goal is to make your business seem less scary – ala CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI, then you talk about generative artificial intelligence as part of the long arc of human innovation and not a new threatening technology. You joke about every person on earth taking Molly on the same day and the existence of aliens.  

Some of this may happen naturally because the person met the gating criteria. Yet any interview subject would benefit from thinking in advance about the following:

·       What are the three things I want people thinking at the end of this interview?

·       What facts and data about my business/organization will best reinforce that view?

·       What personal stories both from my life and that I’ve read best illustrate and make these ideas relatable?

·       What is the toughest, most controversial question and can it be answered without sounding defensive?

When prepping someone, put these into bullets, not sentences. Because the concepts need to be remembered, not the exact words or it won’t sound rehearsed.

Last thought: While comfort and confidence are essential, too much can backfire. Encourage interviewees not to overshare and to stop speaking once they’ve responded. It’s classic interview technique to leave long pauses that make interviewees rush to fill the void, saying something unintended. Important not to take the bait. Podcasters want dead air less than their guests.

As a regular consumer of long-form content – podcast or prose, I am heartened by the broadening of this opportunity and what it says about people and the pursuit of knowledge.

Speaking of the pursuit of knowledge, was it Socrates who mused, “the unexamined life is not worth living?”

A week ago, I had the wonderful experience of attending a Wall Street Journal reunion in New York with some 150 former reporters and editors. While it barely scratched the surface of all the amazing folks I crossed paths with as a reporter there, it nevertheless reminded me how lucky I was to be a business journalist at this esteemed news outlet when I was.

Sadly it also reminded me how little self-reflection journalists tend to do – much to the detriment of us all.

Personal role models like Paul Steiger, former WSJ managing editor and founder of ProPublica, were there, along with former Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann and his wife Karen Elliott House, former WSJ publisher and more. Everyone a bit grayer, perhaps moving a bit slower yet still fired up about the need for a strong press in a free society. It really was a nice time to connect with people who will forever be my tribe.

Yet at a time when the media ranks lower than the US Congress in public trust – and has for a while, I’m surprised by how quickly journalists render themselves victim. To be clear, I have and always will believe the hallmark of a free society is a free press. After all, can you name a single authoritarian-ruled country with a free press? The attacks on responsible journalism broadly and individual journalists specifically are unacceptable and should never be normalized.

But public trust in the media didn’t plunge for no reason. There likely are many but I’ll cite two. First, news organizations placed revenue above responsibility, closing regional and international news offices that left audiences less informed and more disconnected from each other and the world while prioritizing shorter pieces — you know, snackable news. Second, too many journalists started identifying with the subjects of their reporting, failing to heed the industry’s longtime credo to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

In other words, everyone sought increased comfort instead of inhabiting a space where discomfort was de rigueur.  

Look, I get it. I left journalism 20 years ago because I wanted a barbeque. Seriously! And that wasn’t going to happen without a backyard, which would remain elusive while living in an apartment on a journalist’s salary. Life is full of trade-offs.

Last night, CNN aired live the Broadway show, Good Night and Good Luck with George Clooney starring as legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow. Having seen the play in April, I found the televised version less electric but important nonetheless. Many people, myself included, are drawing parallels between the topic of this play – McCarthyism – with today’s political environment, and there are plenty.

Clooney as Murrow on stage.

But the secondary theme of the play relates to responsibility of the press and its business owners to speak truth to power even when it’s uncomfortable and downright scary. The back and forth between Murrow and then CBS owner Bill Paley in one scene reflects exactly the kind of tough discussions that appear to be missing in today’s news organizations.

As Murrow says in his now famous speech quoting Shakespeare’s Julius Cesar, “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.”

You can watch the real Murrow deliver these remarks here.

Good night and good luck.

Thank You to my summer assistant, Allie Pramberger, who helped with the research for this week’s newsletter.