</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
hillbunnyb said:
good grief, i guess i couldn't be a professional interviewer, I go heart to heart lilke Candybear..... "intoducing bias" my goodness, I am on a different page in a different book on that one. my brain is blubbering with itself to find words to express my dismay at this, my first peek behind the scenes of jurnalism. No wonder communication has gone doody in this country. Yooo Hooo we're all human and that provides context for what we do and think..... Linear, sterile reporting leaves me frustrated and wanting more backround. I guess I'm shocked they teach people to be that way. It's like the rule about "anthropomorphizing"-- "don't emotionally connect, that will scew your results"..... downright missed the whole point thinking to me. )))))))) ) )candybear((((((((( ( (

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

You completely miss my point.

Okay for example (and this is a very blatent one).

My phd was in substance abuse and criminal offending.

I couldn't just go 'hey dude i have taken heaps of drugs too, meth makes me angry, how about you?'

I would connect with them in OTHER ways (of course you need rapport, you're never gonna get real information out of someone you don't do this with).

If they asked me about my drug use then I'd have to choose what to disclose and what not to. It's a delicate issue, but you need to make a judgement call. For me, I'd place it in the past but say enough so they knew I was forreal.

However if I wasn't getting enough information about their meth use and how it influenced their choice to for example commit money-generating crime, maybe I'd normalise it - I might talk about how other people i'd interviewed had done this, was it the same or different for them?

It's really hard to keep 'you' out of it but ... you have to work out how to do it or you may end up in %#@&#! or messin up your material