成人论坛

In the space of a week this autumn, Stephen Nolan collected the and, for the second time, the for the year’s best broadcast interview.

, a British survivor of the bloody Bataclan concert hall siege in Paris, was “one of those rare interviews that draws the listener completely into the world the words are creating - in this case, a world of almost unimaginable fear and bravery”, the judges said. Nolan had demonstrated “great skill as well as empathy and humanity” in drawing out a chilling story, producing “a compelling listen”.

As he prepares to re-interview O’Connor, one year on, for a , we asked the presenter how he’d handled the November 2015 interview and more generally, about dealing sensitively with vulnerable on-air contributors: 

What, if any preparation were you able to do for your 2015 interview with Michael O’Connor?

I had no notice at all that we were going to interview Michael. He sent us an email while I was on air. We rang him straight back and scrapped our running order. So there was no time to prepare. But this wasn't an interview where I needed statistics or facts. My job was to bring the listener inside his mind and his experience. To do that, the only skill I used is one that I believe we all have: talking to, and empathising with another human being.

When we meet someone in the street, we don't tell them we’ll speak to them in 30 minutes, after we’ve thought about what we will say. What you must do, from day one in broadcasting, is be a natural human being. That might sound obvious, but there are people who adopt a persona on air. That way lies a career of failed acting and insincere questioning. 

What was your assessment of Michael’s emotional state and how did that affect the way you approached the interview?

It was important for me to make a judgement at the beginning about whether he was strong enough for where I wanted to go with the interview. 

I knew I wanted to bring his mind back inside the Bataclan - and when he said out loud he wanted people to know what he had gone through, I took that as a first indication of informed consent.

However, often interviewees in these situations want to talk because they are still in shock and a prolonged interview can be damaging to them. So I was always looking out for whether he was becoming more distressed.

Michael did become very emotional as he described the moment he thought he would die while shielding his girlfriend. But I continued with the interview because he did not seem agitated. It's OK to continue with a live interview if someone is upset, but I would stop it immediately - even against their will - if they became increasingly distressed or agitated.

Over 25 minutes, you asked him to describe the harrowing scene, the sequence of events, his own terrifying experience and what was going through his mind. How did you go about building up the picture for listeners?

Michael had just left one of the most horrific scenes a human being will witness. His mind was trying to process what he had seen. And at this stage, listeners around the world had no real idea what had happened inside the Bataclan. 

There is a tendency in these situations, especially on news networks, to convey the story by numbers: number of people injured, number of people dead. Often, the numbers mean very little. What a journalist needs to do is take the listener, very slowly, step by step, through what happened. 

I wanted us all to be able to create an image in our mind of what normality was like before the gunmen struck. Then I wanted to know the fine detail about the lighting inside the hall and what the first noise was that indicated danger. It is often the small facts - a memory of what someone was wearing, a smell, a glance, that will trigger a very powerful statement from an interviewee. 

There are ways of asking these questions without sounding crass. I wanted to know what the gunman looked like. So I asked Michael what age the killer was, if there was fear on the killer’s face. 

In these types of live news events, do not forget that the human brain has been capturing many thousands of split second images of what was happening. What I was trying to do was gently - and respectfully - ask Michael to describe those many images in his mind. 

How did you balance the need to coax out and clarify those details - asking him to backtrack, even when the detail was horrific - with consideration for his clearly raw feelings?

Simple. Are you a genuine, decent, authentic human being when you are interviewing someone or not? I felt I was genuinely bonding with Michael and my concern for him was authentic. Therefore, I think I would have detected if I my questions were harming him. 

I truly believe an interviewee can very quickly tell if you are insincere on air. Michael trusted me and that's how we got such very powerful descriptions from him.

You were obviously listening hard to his answers and the pace of the interview was very measured, with some long pauses between questions. Was that deliberate?

I am known for using long silences. It's not a technique. It's real in so far as it often takes my brain a few seconds to think about what has been said to me. I feel no compulsion to speak to fill silence. If I need a few seconds to process what I’ve just been told, I take the time. 

In fact, on air silence can be a powerful way for an interviewer to bond with their listeners. Often, silence speaks louder than words, about what’s just been said.

The judges praised your empathy with Michael. As an interviewer, do you ever worry about giving too much of yourself away?

I am an ordinary guy in life and I'm an ordinary guy on air. I'm no smarter than the average listener, nor do I portray myself as any more intelligent.

What I'm trying to do is ask the question the average man or woman is thinking about. I sometimes hear broadcasters construct questions which contain so many facts that a computer could have asked them.

To answer your question, I give a lot of myself away on air. Listeners know I'm very fat and hate it, they know my mother's name and they know when I'm happy or sad. The more they know about me, the less formality there is between us. 

Informality is one of the most powerful tools a broadcaster can have. There's an unwritten code that news broadcasters keep a stiff upper lip. I disagree with that. If I'm communicating a news story, then hopefully you will trust what I'm saying because you know who and what I am.

How have you prepared for the special anniversary programme on 13 November? 

Rather than re-reading endless facts and figures about the Bataclan atrocity, I'll travel to meet Michael at his home. I've stayed in touch with him and have been interested in his recovery. That's been my preparation.

I'll arrive at his house, I won't have a posh suit on, I'll sit down with him and ask him if he is OK, one year after this terrible terrorist atrocity wrecked his life. In other words, it won't feel like a news interview. It will feel like a conversation between two people on the same level. That will yield better answers from Michael.

Are news anniversaries good for the people affected, or just good for journalists?

I think anniversaries can be traumatic for interviewees closest to the story. They can be triggers for horrible memories and as journalists, we need to be really careful. 

What would be your top three pieces of advice to journalists interviewing people affected by tragedy or trauma?

Be human, be kind and be real. If you are, you will be able to ask questions that are far more penetrating. 

.

Stephen Nolan broadcasts on from 10pm to 1am Friday, Saturday and Sunday. He also hosts  on 成人论坛 Radio Ulster from 9am-10.30am Monday - Friday and The 成人论坛 One Northern Ireland series .

with Stephen Nolan, 10pm, Sunday, 13 November, 成人论坛 Radio 5 live