Regrets of a Twelve Year Old Reporter: The Michelle Obama Interview

In 2019 I was approached by Michelle Obama’s team and given an opportunity to conduct an interview with her in light of the publication of her memoir, “Becoming.” At the time it felt stupid to reject this opportunity. I recognized the importance she played in our country and being able to interview someone with that amount of power felt like a dream come true, 

Besides, questioning those in power is what reporters do, and the former First Lady of the United States is certainly a newsmaker. 

As the process began, I soon realized that the interview I had in mind was not possible. Instead of the kind of face-to-face interview I had done hundreds of times before, it would be through email, where I could send my questions to her (or, more likely, her team), and then she would send back her answers. 

At the Orange Street News, I only did face-to-face journalism. My interviewing had been something I took pride in for a long time. I felt that a good interview should be guided by a natural curiosity, which meant good follow-ups.

Despite my hesitations, I agreed. In my eyes, being able to ask my questions was better than nothing, even if it didn’t have the full effect of a normal interview. The piece was featured in a magazine, then reposted on my website in August of 2019. 

The interview even made national news since I was able to get her first response to the question over whether she herself would ever run for president (zero chance she responded).

People applauded me for conducting the interview. Subscriptions to my newspaper went up with the new publicity.

But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to have questions. Now I look back and can see the fraudulent nature of that interview and those like it. My readers had assumed that I had actually spoken to her face-to-face, but in reality, the email interview acted not as a true interview with back and forth but as a sort of carefully controlled press release in which I served the role of a prop more than a reporter.

Over that format, I had no power, and in a way, the interview would be completely out of my hands. 

When a similar opportunity arose to interview Hillary Clinton, I refused it due to the fact that I would have to send her team my questions before hand. 

I would later learn that this wasn’t the exception, but the norm.

The issue with interviewing politicians is that they’re rarely authentic interviews in the way good journalism should be. The process for these interviews almost always consists of sending questions to the subjects team so that the politician can have prepared answers for each question that spins whatever narrative they’re trying to push. Instead of holding politicians accountable like reporters should, it acts as an opportunity for the politician to get positive publicity. 

Honest journalism is essential to an authentic democracy. Being able to interview politicians on the spot is the best way of knowing what they genuinely stand on. Our leaders should be able to handle a follow-up question and should be held accountable for the real questions the people have. If we, as journalists, give these people a place to manipulate an interview, it undermines our democracy as a whole. Especially considering that most people watching have no idea that these interviews aren’t on the spot, which means that journalists are not only doing scummy reporting but also giving these politicians a place to manipulate the public.

How can we call ourselves journalists if we are catering to the very powers we are supposed to hold into account?

A true journalist doesn’t work for the government; they work for the people. The sad reality is that a lot of reporters today don’t work off of that principle. Instead, they attempt to push a narrative based on their own ideologies, dividing the media into the left media and the right media, making their stories speak into an echo chamber of people who already think the same way they do.

Looking back, I see my logic in agreeing to the interview. I was right in thinking that this format was my only shot at interviewing someone at that level. 

Why would politicians agree to do authentic interviews when they have many journalists who would agree to conduct an interview that will let them have complete control over the way the public will perceive them? The only thing that could stop this would be if all journalists refused to agree to these phony interviews, forcing the politicians to submit to the public being able to hold them accountable.