Ambush interviews

[Chicago2008 9]

How common would you all say ambush style interviews are? Finally why would you all say you don't see them much anymore? Thanks

[MarkBRollins88_v2 321]

On 6/20/2024 at 3:45 PM, Chicago2008 said:

How common would you all say ambush style interviews are? Finally why would you all say you don't see them much anymore? Thanks

I would say they’re still done just as much as they always have. But they should only be reserved for very certain situations.

 

generally, a reporter should only want to approach someone with the mic on and camera rolling unannounced if the situation meets the following criteria (and this is very subjective and situational: 

 

1. The person being “ambushed” is a public servant (politician, police chief, city manager, etc.), OR a powerful/influential private citizen (business owner, lawyer, political staff member, celebrity). 
 

2. The person must be facing serious accusations that majorly affect the lives and/or wallets of members of the public who have put their trust in that person (embezzlement, murder, assault, any number of sex crimes, fraud, racketeering, electioneering etc.).

 

***THE ACCUSATIONS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED AND YOU SHOULD ALREADY HAVE DONE SOME DUE DILIGENCE  YOUR OWN TO VALIDATE THE CLAIMS***

 

3. The reporter has made *numerous* attempts to reach the person in good faith to schedule an interview, and documented these attempts. This should include, but is not limited to, emails, phone calls, showing up to their office and requesting to schedule an interview, etc.

 

4. A reasonable amount of time has passed for the person to respond to those requests. This can vary situationally. But at least a 24 hours should be given. 
 

5. The reporter has specific questions that have not been answered, and the only person who can answer them is the person being “ambushed.”
 

 

Again, all of that is very fluid and just a very basic idea of the ethics behind “ambushing” people.

 

Some will have looser ethics around this stuff, some will have tighter ethics.

 

My pet peeve: Some stations will go for low-hanging fruit “behind the kitchen door” stories where they find a restaurant with a low (but not failing) health rating and show up to the restaurant with a camera and put them on blast as if they serve straight-up poison to their customers (even though they still passed inspection—albeit not by much.) In my opinion, using ambush tactics for stuff like that is like the boy who cried wolf. It sensationalizes something that really isn’t a problem. 
 

While I personally wouldn’t say I’ve seen any huge decrease in the use of this tactic—If you *have* been seeing fewer ambush-style interviews as of late, it’s probably because many newsrooms have strengthened ethics around this stuff, and are moving away from consultant-driven overly-sensational non-stories, as the years have gone on… because it’s not good journalism.  
 

TLDR: You should save ambush tactics for the most serious situations in which you and the public have been denied answers you have a right to know by someone in a position of power. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 03:09 PM by MarkBRollins88_v2

[Megatron81 194]

I think the investigative units of news stations is where the ambush happens on contractors that scam people which I like when they catch them on camera. I feel that would be a good show for local TV stations to do for at least a half hour on the weekends I remember Spike TV had a series called To Catch A Contractor which they need or any type of scamming doesn't have to be contractors. You still see ambushes in newscasts largely businesses taking average Joe/Jane's money for work done at the house.