創(chuàng)造性的采訪

前言

　　One word distinguishes this third edition of Creative Interviewing from the two previous editions: "truth." Or "pursuit of truth," if Im allowed three. In the twenty-five years I have concentrated on journalistic interviewing as a topic of inquiry, Ive become increasingly concerned about truth. What is it？ How do you define it？ How do you apply it to journalism？ Most important, is it en- hanced or impeded by the variety of interview practices common to journalism？ What inspired this change？ Mostly the fact that the public today sees much more of interviewers in action than ever before. Ever more broadcast shows employ questions and answers. These include acerbic talk shows shouting matches oftentimes. Or you can watch clever people use the Q-A di- alogue to match wits just for laughs. Occasionally you can even watch serious forums for discussion of public events. In all such examples, the public has come to recognize that the nature of the question often dictates the nature of the answer. Jocular questions beget jocular answers. Belligerent questions beget defensive answers. How does truth fare in that arena？ How does truth fare under the long standing premise that the work of the journalist is essentiaUy adversarial？ The premise suggests that reporters and sources are ene- mies and that the journalistic interview represents a grand chess game of thrust and counterthrust, advance and retreat, win or lose. We may want to rethink those tactics if our journalistic objective is to tell the truth without fear or favor.　　I like to think of the changes in the third edition as a slight course correction, like a ship captain steering three or four degrees left or right. The changes might seem slight at first, but some of the scenery will be different. Among the changes is an increasing concern for the ethics of the journalistic interview. Its a concern fueled by increasingly prevalent examples, primarily on television, of such shady tactics as the hidden camera sting, the ambush interview, and the screaming meemies, the term I use to cover televisions more boisterous talk shows.

內(nèi)容概要

“采、寫、編、評(píng)”——新聞采訪、新聞寫作、新聞編輯、新聞評(píng)論，是新聞?dòng)浾叩乃拇蠡竟?，也是新聞傳播學(xué)專業(yè)的四大核心課程。其中的新聞采訪則是記者職業(yè)技能的重要組成部分，是新聞傳播過程的“第一環(huán)節(jié)”。新聞界素有“七分采訪，三分寫作”的說法，可見如果沒有新聞采訪的成果和基礎(chǔ)，其后的新聞寫作、新聞編輯和新聞評(píng)論都將成了無本之木和空中樓閣。     梅茨勒教授曾在美國(guó)俄勒岡大學(xué)獲新聞學(xué)學(xué)士學(xué)位，并有過五年的新聞?dòng)浾邚臉I(yè)經(jīng)歷，早在1972年即開始講授新聞采訪課程。本書是作者在新聞采訪的理論知識(shí)、實(shí)務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)和教學(xué)實(shí)踐成果不斷積累的基礎(chǔ)之上，歷經(jīng)時(shí)間檢驗(yàn)所形成的經(jīng)典性的新聞采訪實(shí)務(wù)教學(xué)框架。本書主要介紹了廣播電視采訪、人物采訪、特定領(lǐng)域采訪和多重采訪項(xiàng)目幾大類型，結(jié)合實(shí)例介紹了采訪的具體步驟，并對(duì)如何策劃采訪、創(chuàng)造性地提問、使對(duì)話自然延伸、寫采訪筆記及如何進(jìn)行采訪錄音等具體問題提出了細(xì)致、獨(dú)到的建議。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

肯·梅茨勒(Ken Metzler)，1956年畢業(yè)于美國(guó)俄勒岡大學(xué)，獲新聞學(xué)學(xué)士學(xué)位，之后做過五年新聞?dòng)浾摺?961年獲美國(guó)西北大學(xué)新聞學(xué)碩士學(xué)位，同年開始在該大學(xué)任教。現(xiàn)任俄勒岡大學(xué)新聞傳播學(xué)院名譽(yù)教授。1972年開始講授新聞采訪課程，曾在世界多個(gè)城市主持學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)，討論新

書籍目錄

前言第1章  你采訪的問題何在？第2章  何謂采訪？第3章  采訪的十個(gè)步驟第4章  采訪要素——個(gè)案史第5章  提問第6章  采訪中的對(duì)話動(dòng)力學(xué)第7章  接受采訪第8章  采訪設(shè)計(jì)第9章  失敗的教訓(xùn)第10章  學(xué)會(huì)傾聽第11章  新聞?dòng)^察第12章  引語和軼事的采訪第13章  電話采訪、采訪記錄與采訪錄音第14章  特殊問題第15章  電子輔助采訪第16章  廣播電視采訪第17章  特定新聞?lì)I(lǐng)域的采訪第18章  多重采訪項(xiàng)目第19章  人物采訪第20章  采訪倫理第21章  通向事實(shí)真相的十個(gè)步驟附錄A  采訪練習(xí)附錄B  采訪報(bào)告范例參考文獻(xiàn)本書所提及的采訪

章節(jié)摘錄

　　concluding that when words clash with the tone of voice and facial expression, people tend to believe the nonverbal aspects.　　Eyes　　That eyes speak volumes is suggested by the folklore on the subject, ranging from language terms （"shifty eyes"） to proverbs （"reproof on her lips but a smile in her eyes"）. Various studies suggest that eye contact en- hances response and that people tend to look at the other person more while listening than while talking. One study used film clips and asked viewers to evaluate the people who looked at them while speaking cpm- pared with those who seldom looked at them. Viewers judged the look- ers as friendly, self-confident, natural, mature, and sincere. They judged the nonlookers as cold, pessimistic, defensive, evasive, and immature. （Klick 1968.）　　Kinesics　　Numerous research studies have suggested that we communicate with our bodies-from a speakers pounding the table to subtle changes in fa- cial expression. The signs do not always contain clear meanings, how- ever. A study once asked people to act out six emotional messages through nonverbal methods. As a video camera rolled, the amateur ac- tors tried to project anger, fear, seductiveness, indifference, happiness, and sadness. When audiences viewing the tapes tried to determine which emotion was which, they usually misperceived four of the six. They perceived one young woman as "seductive" in every one of her six mood transmissions and another woman as "angry" in all six of hers. （Beier 1974.） So much for decoding nonverbal signals. For the interviewer they merely provide hints to be probed for detail.　　Proxemics　　Edward T. Hall, an anthropologist, defined four levels of distance be- tween human pairs as they converse in everyday life: intimate, personal, social, and public distances. They range from touching at the intimate distance to about twelve feet and beyond for public distance. （Hall 1966.） The typical interview tends to range from the far side of personal dis- tance （eighteen inches to four feet） to the near side of social distance （four to twelve feet）.

編輯推薦

　　運(yùn)用案例講解采訪技巧　　深入探討采訪倫理道德　　揭示新聞采訪內(nèi)在規(guī)律

圖書封面

圖書標(biāo)簽Tags

無

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    創(chuàng)造性的采訪 PDF格式下載

---