From the ages of 12 to 16, in the 1980s I was a paperboy for my hometown Contra Costa Times. Part of my job may be familiar. We carriers were required to deliver the newspapers on time, in our case 6:30 a.m.

Two other parts may be less familiar.

We had to collect money from subscribers who paid all of $6.50 a month, and with prizes as inducements, we were encouraged to sell subscriptions. An entrepreneurial and dutiful kid, I obliged. At nights and on weekends, I knocked on doors and rang doorbells, which if I added them up must number in the thousands.

Collecting money from and selling subscriptions to complete strangers may sound risky or dangerous today. Whatever the case, the tasks had many practical benefits.

At an early age, I learned to feel comfortable chatting with anyone. As I got older, the list included those outside Concord and Walnut Creek, not the least of which are two presidents, three presidential nominees, and one vice president.

The point is, interviewing anyone, including high-level government officials, is a skill that can be cultivated like shooting a basketball or grilling a hamburger. It doesn’t require being a suck-up, an insider, or a seducer.

The most important skills are those of the cardinal virtue of justice or fairness.

A good interviewer must be fair to all parties involved—the elected official, your readers, your editors, and yourself. Technology alone will not yield a great “get,” an interview with a celebrity, top official, or otherwise newsworthy person. This is shortsighted. Underlying standard journalism debates are questions of fairness.

Tape recorders capture a person’s actual words but at the cost of making him or her speak less freely. Should you be fair to the interview subject by using a tape recorder or to your readers by writing down their quotes? Interviewing a senator who has misinformed the public also poses challenges. Should you ignore their lies and false statements at the risk of letting them circulate or expose them at the risk of earning the enmity of his or her supporters?

To be sure, conducting a successful interview requires more than fairness. The other three cardinal virtues—prudence, fortitude, and temperance—are important, too. Yet being fair comes up most often in my list of the necessary steps.

A caveat is in order.

This post will focus on interviewing representatives at the U.S. Capitol rather than in their districts or abroad. Of course, pols operate other arenas in which pols operate. As the late political scientist Richard Fenno noted in his award-winning Home Style: Members and their Districts, members cultivate their relationships and personalities with voters in the home district. And in the 1970s and ‘80s especially, members of the House Committee on Foreign Relations conducted pioneering investigations overseas.

Yet Washington is the political arena I am most used to. This is a blessing.

While Washington is part “swamp,” a corruption-filled mess, it is also part river, a fast-moving beautiful stream. It’s the city that gave us Watergate and the Capitol riot, but also civil rights and the defeat of the Soviet Union. All serious writers about the city—Jimmy Breslin, Robert Caro, Nicholas Lemann, John Barry—have recognized Washington’s Dr. Jekyll-and-Mr. Hyde nature.  

What’s more, Congress is a great branch of government to cover. As a rule, members want attention. This is not true of the agencies. At the SEC, reporters must wear a badge and their movements are tracked by security guards and spokespeople. You feel like you’re being watched. At the Capitol, you have wide latitude.

This freedom can be misused, though. A bad interview with a senator or congressman brings unwanted scrutiny. To avoid this, I recommend writers and reporters follow six steps: 

1.  Know Your Stuff.

Reporters should know the subject they wish to ask questions about; specifics are better than generalities, as reporter Seymour Hersh, famous for his subject expertise, has showed in his exposes about the military and CIA.

This shows fairness to the Member and to readers. If reporters don’t know the Member’s position on an issue such as Medicare funding, they have no business asking it.

 This sounds like Interviewing 101. In fact, the lesson is more sophisticated.

Most members of Congress are skilled at shading their language or verbal head fakes. They don’t want to commit themselves to a position. For example, a senator may tell you the president is a wonderful person. This means he or she likes them, not that the senator supports his or her policy or will vote for him or her.

2. Make it personal.

With 100 senators and 435 representatives, even members of Congress can, as Bob Seger complained, “feel like a number.” Members appreciate hearing their names.

They can even get annoyed, as one representative reminded me once, when a reporter refers to him or her as “Congressman.” Saying senator or congresswoman and his or her last name shows not only respect but also fairness to the person.

This point has a corollary. You must identify the Member of Congress correctly. With so many politicians running around the Capitol, it’s easy to screw up!

Getting his or her name wrong is not only embarrassing but also ineffective. It’s unlikely to draw him or her out of spin-control mode. If you misidentify them, why should they risk being candid and making a political gaffe?

Further, a reporter or writer should seek to establish a human connection with the Member.

How are their kids?

Are they in good health?

Asking these questions with a transactional motive, however, is likely to fail.

Members can spot insincere questions and comments. I give this advice with the proviso that many members of Congress are all business with reporters, so attempts to ingratiate may fall flat.

3.  Break from the pack.

For half a century at least, Congressional coverage has been pack journalism. In the short run, this makes sense. Legislation to raise the debt limit must pass or the government will run out of money to operate. In the longer run, this is ill advised.

Some social and economic problems happen in slow motion and Washington cannot pay attention. Witness the opioid epidemic or the sexual abuse crisis in civic institutions. Both started decades ago. We in the Washington press corps missed the boat on those stories, as we have on many others.

 Breaking from the pack by exploring percolating issues in the country shows fairness to readers and would-be readers. You are more than the Establishment’s political or financial secretary. You write and report about civic America.

As it is, the D.C. press corps is an amalgam of political nerds and obsessives, drunkards, former class presidents, driven professionals, and political shills. Many are fine people and reporters. Yet too many would be excellent corporate spokesmen or press secretaries and too few are Michael Kelly’s, Marjorie Williams, Nicholas Lemann’s, and Alan Ehrenhalt’s.

At the risk of presumption, I encourage my colleagues in the Washington press corps to show more independent thought and strike out on their own.

 4.  When in doubt …

Reporters who commit factual errors or misquote people are like cancer patients. The longer the problem persists, the more fatal the prognosis.

While errors creep up, they must be attacked. If a Member of Congress says something unusual or ambiguous, follow up to clarify. “When in doubt, take it out.” You are being fair to your readers and publication.

 5.  Get used to rejection.

Interview stake outs at the Capitol can be exercises in frustration.

Members of Congress insist they are on their phone and can’t talk. They ask you to contact their office. Or they brush past you. All I can say is even the best of reporters have interview requests rejected. Show fortitude and keep asking away.

 Consider this from the Member of Congress’ point of view. With the decline and fall of political machines, most senators and House members are political entrepreneurs. They can ill afford verbal slip-ups. Impromptu interviews are therefore a risk.  

 6.  Follow the rules.

 Ignore the Capitol Police at your risk or displeasure. Alas, I did so in the late 1990s when I worked for States News Service, one of whose clients was The Chicago Tribune.

 One day Chicago aldermen were at the Capitol to meet with the Windy City’s congressional delegation behind closed doors. My Tribune colleague recommended I listen in on the hearing by cupping my ear to the door. Which I did.

Except the Capitol Police ordered me to cease and desist. I refused. They asked me to come with them. We walked to several hundred yards away. After I apologized, I was let go. Meanwhile, the aldermen left. I was without a story. 

If had shown prudence and temperance, I may have had one.

– 30 –