Child Pageantry
Cyber Bullying
Politicians Posting in Social Media
Sports Psychology
Psychology of Introversion
I know that I haven't addressed all of your topics, but I would ask you to find interviews other than these for your papers. However, if you wish to use the work of those being interviewed, or an interview on a different topic by the same interviewer, you may.
Answer the following questions about your choice:
- Who do you think is the audience (perform some due diligence here, and look up the details on the interviewer/show)?
- Would you consider the person being interviewed an expert? Why or why not?
- Do you think the interviewer asked questions that brought the best results? If you did not have many overt questions in your interview, what questions do you think the interviewer asked, and do you feel they were effective?--when considering effectiveness, think about how the video would make the audience, think, feel and believe, and whether or not the interviewer achieved those goals.
- What questions might you ask?
Due before class on February 26th.
Reply: Reply to a classmate that watched the same interview that you did. Point out at least one aspect of the post you agree with, and at least one aspect you either learned from or might challenge (disagree professionally). Be specific with every aspect of your reply.
Reply by midnight on Friday, February 28th.
The interview I choose was Psychology of introversion by Darcy Eikenburg. I believe the intended target audience were people interested in Jennifer Kahnweiler new book and for people wanting to get informed on a new way thinking of how to lead. I would consider Jennifer Kahnweiler an expert to talk about introversion. That is because she had previously done extensive research on the topic of introversion and how people who are introverts can lead and developed it and put it in her book “The Quiet Influence”. Darcy was very enthusiastic in the beginning but as it went on her questions began to ramble until Jennifer spoke up. The questions weren’t effective since Darcy was not assertive. So the interviewer was not the overall success of this interview it was Jennifer speaking to automatically fill in the blanks. But the overall interview was a success because the main points of the book were established. It most likely affected the audience by influencing them to buy Jennifer Kahnweiler’s book. The questions I would have asked more about were, what happened with her experiences with introverts and where she did more of her research?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eikenberg not being assertive in the interview. Kahnweiler certainly had the reins for the better portion of the interview. It seems like the interview was really a book plug, which I'm sure made Kahnweiler happy.
DeleteI watched the interview about Child Pageantry and I got the impression that the audience was the general public with the goal of educating people of the negative side of the pageants. I did look up more about Sharon Witt who was one of the women being interviewed, and she does have credibility as an expert about how children can be affected negatively because of the pageantry life. The interviewer seemed to ask only general questions geared to get the women being interviewed to explain the negative side to child pageantry. I felt that she was only opening the door for them to express their expert opinions and that it wasn't as detailed an interview as it could have been. I would have asked them if there were laws being created to protect the young girls and how the public could get involved to stop the exploitation from the pageants. The women being interviewed answered the questions well though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how the interviewer only asked general questions. However, the woman that you said was an expert, I did not see that as so. On the other hand, if she truly is an expert, I feel that the interviewing station did little to make it known.
DeleteThe audience, for the cyber-bullying interview with 60 minutes would be everyone to raise awareness. The interview pertains to parents and children, but is beneficial to anyone that may possibly know someone that is being cyber-bullied.
ReplyDeleteChloe’s sister (Cassie) and friends have been affected first-hand with cyber-bullying. Because of the experience with Chloe’s situation, the interviewed are very knowledgeable and could be considered experts. The interviewer did very well asking open-ended questions and showed a great amount of empathy while getting the answers she needed. I believe the interviewer did well telling the story of Chloe’s death. The audience would feel a great deal of compassion and want to support the “Chloe Law.” I also believe that the audience would feel more strongly about cyber-bullying and raise more awareness in the area they live in. Many of the parents in the audience would have a discussion with their own children which will hopefully decrease cyber-bullying.
Some of the questions I may have asked would be:
How will the new law help prevent cyber-bullying?
Was there a change in Chloe’s behavior?
The interview that I watched was the Child Pageantry interview. The interview was alright I guess but it did little to captivate me or grab my attention. I felt that while they did a good job grabbing the attention of their audience, concerned parents, I also feel that they did very little to make me care for this topic. I care for the topic and think it is something everyone should agree with, however, it was comparable to hearing that water is good for the body. A fact yes, but no new information in the slightest. I felt that the interviewees were far from experts and the interviewer asked only basic questions that brought back very little results. I might ask, what are these girls saying and thinking about themselves, or other questions that actually deal with the girl mentally, emotionally, and phsycologically. Questions that go past what they do and instead focus on how they are affected personally. So no, this interview was less than stellar. Just ordinary, average, and bland.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the interviewer asked only basic question however i disagree with the statment that the interviewees were not experts. Both Danielle miller and Sharon Witt are in my opinnion experts.
DeleteThe interview I watched was on child beauty pageants. I believe the audience is the mothers that subject their child to pageantry and to the other people in Australia who support Sharon Witt and Danielle Millers beliefs on child pageantry. Both Sharon Witt and Danielle Miller are both experts, because they both deal with children and the impact of things like pageants could have on a child. Witt wrote a book called “Teen Talk”, and Miller cofounded a foundation called Enlightened Education. I thought the interview question were generally okay but it did not seem to be asking any deep question that could garter better answers. If I was doing the interview I would ask more questions about how the children felt towards what they had to do for the pageants and also what happens to the kids after the pageants are over both right afterwards and when they have grown up. The short term and long term effects of child pageantry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on other questions that should have been asked. The experts that were interviewed covered a lot of ground but there were enough of the girls that were interviewed at a later time. It seemed from the one girl that was interviewed it was a positive experience, but that's as far as the show took it as far as actual families involved with child pageantry.
DeleteI chose the interview about introversion. Darcy Eikenberg interviewed Jennifer Kahnweiler about her new book, Quiet Influence: The Introvert’s Guide to Making a Difference. I consider Kahnweiler to be an expert on introversion, as she has written two books regarding the issue. Eikenberg didn’t really ask many questions; the interview seemed to be directed more by the interviewee than the interviewer. Still, the main aspects of the book were touched on, and this probably satisfied Kahnweiler’s purpose for the interview. I would have asked more about Kahnweiler’s findings from her survey; introverts’ perceptions of extroverts, how introverts view their role in professional environments, and what kind of strategies introverts use to “deal with” the world at large.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you say, the main aspects of the book being touched on, and Kahnweiler's purpose being met in the interview, whether that meant both or either the book being promoted and/or the knowledge shared. I do agree that the interviewee seemed to direct the interview more than the interviewer. However, I would argue that that's actually a proper aspect in this case, considering Kahnweiler did direct the interview in talking a lot about what's in her book, and in my opinion, that's what was needed in this interview. Plus the interviewer did truly listen in reframing and following up on what Kahnweiler was saying, and that was effective in this interview.
DeleteI chose the interview about the Psychology of Introversion. I believe the audience was for introverts and those wanting to read the book by Kahnweiler. The author being interviewed was very credible. She is an author and has a PhD. The interviewer did well in asking what the book was about, but i wouldve asked questions about the examples of introverts that hold high leadership posititions and why they have succeeded. I wouldve also asked about how introverts view the extroverts, good or bad?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe interview I chose to observe and write about was Psychology of Introversion. I can see that it may interest those who are interested in Jennifer Kahnweiler's book or who are constant visitors on RedCapeRevolution.com. However, I mainly see that the intended audience can be for those who are introverted, being that Kahnweiler really goes into the strengths of them and how they make great leaders and how they can be. I see that she is an expert on the subject of introverts because she seems to be speaking from observation of other introverted leaders and introverts in general. She even states she researched this topic before her first book came out in 2009, and her credibility shows from her background. Examples are when the interviewer, Darcy Eikenberg, states Kahnweiler is "hailed as the champion of introverts", and that she has a PhD and that her book has been translated into six languages and that she has spoken all over the world about this subject, which is confirmed by Kahnweiler outside this interview. I think Eikenberg did ask effective questions and got the answers needed because of the direct, knowledge-filled answers responding to the questions. Also, the way of communication, in which she was able to make follow up responses on what Kahnweiler was saying, looked like a connection was made between the two. For example, when Eikenberg asked the first question of what Kahnweiler meant by "quiet influence", I saw that she answered her with information she gathered in her research, and when a follow up statement from Eikenberg was made, Kahnweiler gave some insight in the example of Mr. Rogers from his own children's TV show, and how he established himself as a quiet, calm influence to the children watching his show, and Eikenberg was then able to follow-up and relate to what Kahnweiler was saying. Although I saw that this interview was somewhat a promotion for her book, my question towards Kahnweiler are this: what inspired her to get into this subject, what other works are out there to back up her work, and can she explain this further?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Jennifer Kahnweiler is an expert in the field of introversion and that Eikenberg and her had a connection that flowed when they spoke during the interview. But I would have to disagree with Kahnweiler going into deep detail over the strengths of introverts because I felt that she purposely did not give all her details of her research so that people would have to buy her book if they wanted to gain that information about how introverts succeed. Also I would have to disagree about Eikenberg having effective questions, and that is only because, to me she sort of dragged out her questions until Jennifer spoke up.
DeleteI chose the interview about cyber bulling. The audience is geared more towards parents, teachers, students, and anyone trying to spread awareness to this situation. Chloe and Cassie (sister) experienced cyber bullying and because of Chloe's situation, I would say they would be considered experts in this particular field. The one giving the interview showed empathy and had a very open mind and asked open questions to get deep answers and to get them to share their true feelings and answers. "Chloe's Law" could definitely be supported in the way the interviewer asked the questions and this would influence the audience members to help raise awareness and teach their children as well as others the devastating affects cyber-bullying has in society. Other questions I would ask would be, "Do you think the new law will help raise awareness and prevent cyberbullying? If so, How?"
ReplyDeleteI agree minus the fact that they are experts. They in my mind would be more experienced. Neither one of them have any type of degree formulating to psychology, however, they were battered with bullying on a regular basis for no apparent reason. But I do agree that the interviewer did an outstanding job as far as portraying the emotions people go through dealing with this topic
DeleteThe interview about the child bullying is the one that I had watched.I think the general audience is mostly parents of kids in these age groups to sit them down to watch the program. The general world wide public is what is also targeted because of the magnitude of the show but mostly I think it is for the parents to look for signs of their children committing these acts. I don't neccessaraly think she is an expert by any means other than the fact that she has gone threw the loss of a sister to bullying suicide. She is an advocate to make things like this disappear but that is about all the expertise there is. I think with the length of the interview the questions were direct and straight to the point which resulted in good answers. between the questioning the interviewer gives a story line to make the impact greater which is a very effective way to project emotion to the audience making hard to not feel a bit of guilt or remorse for Chloe. I think the question were well asked and there was not much more to be asked other than are they trying to pursue legal actions to those involved to make examples out of people doing this on a consistent basis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the targeted audience and how well the interviewer did with showing empathy and asking open-ended questions to get a better result. I also feel that you have brought a great point to our attention. The interviewer did give a story line to make the impact greater and more empathetic.The only thing I do not agree with is the expertise. By definition expert is described by " having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience". This family has been through the experience and has a great amount of knowledge when it comes to cyber-bullying. Lets just agree to disagree, I believe you did very well on this blog.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete