The art of the interview

15.10.2021

This piece concerns the Islamic Republic of Iran, so I should start with “in the name of God”, “be nime-e khoda”.

In November 1979, American journalist Mike Wallace from CBS’s “60 minutes” interviewed Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution. This happened shortly after the takeover of the American embassy by the Iranian protesters and nine months after the success of the Islamic revolution in Iran. 

Wallace had an hour with the revolutionary, but he worked for old-time television. As a result, the aired part lasts only 15 minutes. 

On October 2, CNN’s senior international correspondent based in Moscow, Matthew Chance, interviewed Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator. The interview took place a year after the brutal crackdown on the protests in Belarus and five months after Belarusian warplanes forced Ryanar Flight 4978 to land in Minsk so the security forces could arrest Roman Protasevich.

Because it is the 21st Century, the whole one-hour-and-so interview was published on CNN’s website. You can watch the video and read the transcript.

Comparing the incomparable

Why I’m comparing the two interviews? What are the similarities here? Well, none.

However, the comparison of the two discussions allows us to see how important it is to understand the historical context, in which one interviews politicians. It is also crucial to see how different the political setup in a is given country. And finally, to pick up an appropriate journalist for the task.

I keep reading about the similarities between Belarus and “the regime of the ayatollahs”. I would never consider myself a specialist in Iranian affairs. However, I could point out some elements of the two political systems that prove the differences between them.

I want to underline that I don’t want to find excuses for any of the regimes. Atrocities committed by both have no explanation. I’m merely trying to explain that an honest analyst or journalist needs to understand the differences between authoritarian systems. 

“Veloyat-e faquih” or “the rule of the people that are versed in Koran”, the concept introduced by Khomeini to Iran, is horizontal. In Shia Islam, each imam can have their interpretation. Hence the idea of a council that would overlook all things in the country. Khomeini believed that one should put God in the centre of the state and then have a group of wise people to interpret God’s will. An autocracy that debates.

Lukashenko’s Belarus is a hierarchically controlled state. A patrimonial structure, where one person holds everything. Even in the interview with the CNN correspondent, he says, “I own a state of 9 million people”. He never had a plan for Belarus; his goal was just to take and keep the power.   

Questions asked

Sometimes readers and listeners forget that when a journalist interviews a politician, the questions that are asked, are an effect of a long discussion between a journalist and politician’s entourage.  

Wallace explains this. As the narrator in the introduction, he says that some questions were forbidden, some modified, some approved. We can see him and his colleagues sitting on a carpet with notes, discussing with Khomeini’s acolytes. We can hear that the interpreter openly said he would not translate questions he would consider offensive. Thus, the viewer understands that the dialogue with the leader of the Iranian revolution wasn’t easy.

Chance doesn’t do it. Why? Well, television did change since 1979. He would claim that he is trying to be objective, just giving the viewers the questions and answers. 

But then still – questions he asked went through the presidential administration. Why would Lukashenko and his bureaucrats agree to questions about rape, broken bones, tortures, and human rights violations? Because he doesn’t care. It is an excellent opportunity to say – “yes, we did that, and we don’t care”. Belarusian political leader is saying through CNN that Belarusians should be afraid.

The interview with Khomeini is highly edited. Sometimes we see the translator translating the question, and sometimes we have a voice-over translation. It is very important in the most famous part of the interview, Wallace quotes Egypt’s leader Anwar el-Sadat, who said that Khomeini is a lunatic. “His words, not mine,” says Wallace, putting his hand on his heart, a frequent gesture in many Muslim communities. We see how the translator is reluctant to interpret this. 

In the interview with Lukashenka, we see only him. We know neither Chance nor the interpreter. We know from her voice she’s female, which is – again – a typical cultural difference. In most cases in the former USSR, translators are young females.

Who is talking?

Mike Wallace was a typical American journalist of his time. He struggled his way from cigarette advertise towards political journalism. One of his colleagues from Brookings called him “a bully” that always gets his answer. 

Matthew Chance is a typical English journalist. Educated, very experienced abroad. He did his time in conflict zones. Survived the takeover he Rixos al Nasr hotel in Tripoli, Libya, in August 2011. Worked his way from a simple correspondent to a senior representative of CNN in Moscow. 

Wallace’s interview was a discussion with a religious scholar in the middle of the revolution. Khomeini comes out to the Western viewers as someone very dedicated and very distant from what Europe stands for. I think Iranians achieved their goal – they’ve delivered the message that Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi needs to return to Iran. But Wallace also got his share. He knocked the religious teacher from his comfort in a bullying way. 

Lukashenko is interviewed when he is in the high of his power. He proved he could suppress the whole country. Comes out from the interview as a confident person—a random right-wing politician in Austria or France. “Weird guy, but yeah, he’s right about what happens in Guantanamo”.  

 It is sometimes distracting when you know different cultures. But, unfortunately, Chance falls into this trap, thinking that once he knows Russia, Belarus is just a smaller Russia. So, he allows Lukashenka to tell what he wants to an international audience. 

Wallace is doing a different thing. He is indifferent to who Khomeini is because he never worked or studied Persia or Iran. But he wants the answers to questions he wrote down. He would do the same with a CEO of an American company. 

Here is where Chance fails. He tries to be kind and open. Because he knows the region, he worked there. He interviews a dictator at the height of his power. Wallace talks to a leader trying to introduce his idea of the country in a place where politics are all about discussion. 

Chance’s interview gives a dictator a chance to tell what he wants. Wallace is putting it all in context.