What happens when you interview the wrong Guy

When watching a television broadcast interview, it is generally obvious that there are rules being followed for the interview to be carried out successfully and as expected.  Although broadcast to potentially millions of viewers, these interviews begin as one-to-one interactions between an interviewer and an interviewee and the mix of interacting with the interview institution and of genuine live interaction can bring out interesting performances of the self by those involved.  It can be particularly valuable to examine an incident when a key characteristic of the news interview is undermined as we can see the way the conventions of the interview affect performances and examine how people deal with a breach in the news interview norms.  Broadcast live on BBC News 24 programme on Monday the 8^th of May 2006 such an event occurred.  Guy Goma, a man waiting for a job interview, was mistakenly interviewed on live television as IT expert Guy Kewney and interestingly, Goma almost pulled it off.  This essay will look in depth at the underlying structures, assumptions and expectations that take place in the interaction and how the format of the news interview affects the performances of the interviewer and interviewee.  When analysed closely, this piece of data provides an interesting opportunity to question the nature of the self and Erving Goffman’s ideas about performance as well as Harold Garfinkel’s findings about how people react to the breaching of social norms.

For a television interview to be successful, there are certain expectations and obligations of the participants.  The structure of the interview is characterised by a set of generic markers that define the roles of interviewers and interviewees including the modes of address, the proxemics of the interview, the structure of questions and answers and the limits within which each of the participants can negotiate the constraints of those roles (Craig 2012, p. 76).  One of the key assumptions of the roles is that the interviewee is an expert in the specific area they are being interviewed in and the interviewer will ask questions relating to this.  When some of these assumptions are not filled, it can create a strange situation where interlocutors try to keep the interview format in place, even when key parts are missing. 

Looking at an interaction when something goes wrong follows the logic of pioneering ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel (Heritage 1984, p. 78).  The incident of Guy Goma’s interview gives an insight into how people conduct themselves in accordance with certain settings and how people will attempt to make sense of a situation rather than assume there is a breach in the social norms.  Guy Goma is a business studies graduate from the Republic of the Congo and was waiting in the main reception area of the BBC Television Centre in west London for a job interview for a position as a Data Support Cleanser (Waldman 2006).  Due to a series of miscommunications, Goma was taken to the set, introduced live on BBC News 24 as IT expert Guy Kewney and asked about the Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer court case.  Goma was noticeably surprised by his introduction, but with only a slight pause he proceeded to answer the questions the interviewer, Karen Bowerman, asked him even though he did not necessarily give the responses she was expecting.  Despite this serious subversion of interview conventions, the transcript of the interview (as seen below) shows that many of the rules of the interview format are adhered to.  For example Goma and Bowerman take turns with Bowerman initiating and leading the topic.  In any interview, some departures from the desired structure are accepted and other make conflict (Heritage and Roth 1995, p. 4), but what happens when the person being interviewed is not the intended interviewee and furthermore, what happens when this mistaken interviewee identifies the interview structure and tries to adhere to it, even though the questions asked are not for them is an interaction rich with micro-sociological data.

Transcript of Guy Goma Interview on BBC News 24 on 08/05/2006

 [1] Bowerman: Well, Guy Kewney is editor of the technology website Newswireless. [Camera flashes to Guy] Hello, good morning to you.

[3] Bowerman: Were you surprised by this verdict today?

[4] Goma: I am very surprised to see...this verdict to come on me, because I was not expecting that. When I came, they told me something else and I am coming. "You got an interview," that's all. So a big surprise anyway.

                [7] Bowerman: A big surprise, yeah, yes.

                [8] Goma: Exactly.

[9] Bowerman: With regards to the cost that's involved, do you think now more people will be downloading online?

[11] Goma: Actually, if you can go everywhere you're gonna see a lot of people downloading through Internet and the website, everything they want. But I think it is much better for the development and...eh...to inform people what they want, and to get on the easy way, and so faster if they are looking for.

[15] Bowerman: This does really seem to be the way the music industry's progressing now, that people want to go onto the website and download music.

[17] Goma: Exactly. You can go everywhere on the cyber cafe, and you can take...you can go easy. It is going to be an easy way for everyone to get something through the Internet.

                [19] Bowerman: Guy Kewney, thanks very much indeed.

When Bowerman asked her initial question in line 3, she was fulfilling her role as an interviewer by asking the interviewee’s opinion on the matter at hand.  Goma’s response in lines 4 - 6 is honest to his true self, he is indeed surprised, but Goma also keeps his answer ambiguous.  At this point it could be conjectured that Goma’s attempt to answer the questions in a way that continues the interview and does not admit he does not know the answer could be consistent with him thinking he was in a job interview and rationalising the whole experience as some kind of initiation prank (Kewney 2006).   Rather than assume a horrible mistake has occurred, Goma initially tries to make sense of the situation, which is consistent with the findings from Garfinkel’s breaching experiments that that all actions, whether in a simple game or a social interaction, are perceived to have a constitutive structure and a threat to the normal order of these events is upsetting because if we don’t behave according to the rules social organisation simply disintegrates (Garfinkel 1963, p. 198).  Goma is not the only one trying to make the situation make sense as Bowerman in line 7 agrees with Goma’s assertion that it is a “big surprise”.  By carefully observing and analysing the naturally occurring data presented on this news clip, we can begin to deconstruct how interaction occurs in a news interview format and glean an insight into how different settings affect the presentation of the self.      

In their comprehensive book on the news interview, Clayman and Heritage describe it as “an interactional encounter between a journalist and one or more newsworthy public figures” (2002, p. 1).  They continue this definition by explaining interviews consist of “a journalist asking questions of politicians, experts, or others who are “in the news.”” (Clayman & Heritage 2002, p. 1).  It is clear from this basic definition of the news interview that if the person being interviewed is not an expert in the desired area, there is a serious breach in what is expected from the interaction.  In the case of Goma and Bowerman, neither participant fulfilled their obligations in the eyes of the other.  Goma was expecting to be in a job interview, so would have initially been expected to be referred to by his own name, and then asked questions relating to the job he was applying for.  Instead, Bowerman asked him questions about the Apple court case and downloading music.  Likewise, Bowerman expected that the man brought to the stage would be an expert in the area she was interviewing him in.  In her view, her interviewee was obligated to answer the questions with evidence of relevant prior knowledge.  As Goffman postulates, if rules of social conduct are broken, the people involved run the risk of being discredited (Goffman 1967, p. 51).  As Bowerman did not fill her obligation by interviewing the right person and Goma did not respond as an expert interviewee is expected to, both parties would have seemed to be socially incapable.  Instead, they struggled on with the façade of an interview in an attempt to save face. 

The way that Goma is acting in his interview could be described as a performance in line with what is expected in any formal interview, whether it is for a job or the news.  Goffman uses the term ‘performance’ to refer to all the activity an individual consciously makes before observers.  A performance is informed by a ‘front’ that is part of individuals’ performance in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for observers (Goffman 1971, p. 32).   In the interview Goma is performing the role he feels is expected, but aware of it.  Goma recognised the setting he is in as demanding a certain sort of behaviour and then performs that behaviour.  Goffman (1971) argued that all interaction is a performance only with different levels, i.e. front stage and back stage.  Goma’s performance is extremely front stage, his surprised to composed facial expressions at the beginning of the interview evidence that he is aware he needs to perform a role in accordance to the setting he is in.  Setting is part of Goffman’s front and includes scenic parts that act as stimuli to the performer such as furniture, layout, manner and appearance (Goffman 1971, pp32-35).  Goma tailors his performance based on the setting, even mirroring Bowerman’s sitting position throughout the interview. 

Even though Goma does obey many of the interview rules, it is clear to the audience within the first few seconds that there is something amiss in Goma’s interview with Bowerman.  As watchers of news, we can tell that this because we are familiar with the news interview format.  Perhaps what gives Goma’s illegitimacy as an expert interviewee away is his authentic look of horror as he is introduced as Guy Kewney and before he re-composes himself.  While Goffman argues that all interaction is a performance, examining Goma’s behaviour in his interview might suggest there is some authentic interaction.  When  the camera shows a close up of Goma’s face as he is introduced as Guy Kewney (see line 1) Goma’s face turns from a composed front to showing a looking of horror and even mischief before he resumes a performed front stage expression and officially acknowledges the introduction.  Goma’s seemingly raw reaction and then conscious performance could challenge Goffman’s claim that a performance can only be authentic to the degree that the performer is “sincerely convinced that the impression of reality which he stages is the real reality” and a cynic “may not be taken in at all by his own routine” and only perform it for the benefit of others (Goffman 1971, p. 28).  When considering Goma’s interview, it does not seem that he is performing his initial reaction at all, but the guise that follows is clearly a presentation of the self as stimulated by the setting.  Goma is aware he is performing when answering the questions asked by Bowerman by matching her manner and even her language, repeating the word “surprise” in lines 4 and 6 after she introduces it in line 3.  Goma is clearly aware of his performance that is almost entirely dictated by the setting, but his true, unmediated self can perhaps be seen to be beneath the façade dictated by the interview format.

Goma's performance of an expert being interviewed while still revealing some of his confused and nervous state certainly raises questions about the nature of the self.  Goma’s performance is informed heavily by external factors, especially by Goma wanting to protect his how Goma wants to be perceived by Bowerman and anyone else watching.  This phenomenon can be described by Charles Cooleys looking-glass self, which suggests that self-consciousness involves continually monitoring oneself from the point of view of others (Scheff 2005, p. 147).  This could explain Goma’s persistence with answering the questions in the interview as he was introduced as “Guy Kewney is editor of the technology website Newswireless” (line 1).  As Bowerman and the audience perceived him as Kewney, he presented himself as the technology expert by answering the interview questions as best as he could in that role.

Goma’s presentation of self can also be considered to be affected by the institutions he is interacting with.  Goffman describes an institution as an instrumental formal organisation that creates a product such as material artefacts, decisions, or information (1960, p. 176) and that because interactions make up institutions, they are managed by the institutional culture (Manning 2008, p. 686).  This interview is not only modeled by the institution of the news broadcast interview with its legacy and expectations (Clayman & Heritage 2002, p. 12), it is also shaped by its presence within the BBC, which is an institution itself (Engel 2011).  The institutions Goma interacts with can be read as part of the setting he responds to when trying to adhere to the expert interview structure.  The news clip exposes the strict format of the news interview, and might even go as far as showing how strong the impact of an institution on the performance of self can be.  Goma’s performance as an expert on the Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer case could be viewed as not his own performance, but as something structured by the institution.  Even with no rehearsal of the event or research on the questions, in the institutional setting Goma was able to at least partially-successfully carry out an interview, possible due to the level of influence an institutional setting has on a person’s everyday interaction.

The short news clip of Guy Goma’s interview gives us an opportunity to consider how people perform their identities in relation to their context.  We can clearly see that the performance of self is affected by a setting and by others' perceptions.  It also becomes evident that everyday interaction can be affected by institutions which have their own heavily influential structures.  The example of Goma is particularly valuable as it provides an insight to how people can perform certain identities in rather extreme circumstances, as Goma was in a context where he was provoked to take on the identity of an expert in a specific area and carry out an interview i that guise, while still having his own concerns about being perceived as a desirable job applicant at play.  This essay has gone some of the way into uncovering how identities can be performed in response to certain settings, but more research could certainly be done to explore these concepts in depth.

References:

Clayman, S and Heritage, J 2002, News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air, Cambridge University Press, Port Chester.

Craig, G 2010, ‘Dialogue and dissemination in news media interviews’, Journalism, vol.11, no.1, pp75–90, accessed 17/10/2012, doi: 10.1177/1464884909349582

Garfinkel, H 1963 ‘A Conception of and Experiments with ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Concerted Stable Actions’ in O’Brien, J (ed.) The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, vol. 4, California, Pine Forge Press, pp370-81.

Goffman, E 1960, Asylums, Aldine, Chicago.

Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of deference and demeanor’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47-96.

Goffman, E 1971, 'Performances', in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp28-82, accessed 29/08/2012, http://ereadings.uow.edu.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/goffmane1.pdf

Heritage, J 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102.

Heritage, J and Roth, A 1995, ‘Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview’, Research on Language & Social Interaction, vol. 28, no. 1, pp1-60, accessed 20/10/2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_1

Kewney, G 2006, ‘That “Guy” - he really is a Guy, and not a cab driver, either!’, weblog post, Newswireless,15 May, accessed 25/10/2012, http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/2708

Manning, P 2008, ‘Goffman on Organizations’,  Organization Studies vol. 29, no. 5, pp677-699, doi: 10.1177/0170840608088767

Scheff, T.J. 2005, "Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist", Symbolic Interaction, vol. 28, no. 2, pp147-166.

Waldman, S 2006, ‘The wrong guy’, weblog post, BBC, 15 May, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/05/the_wrong_guy_1.html