This week we are revisitng the YouTube video titled War on Cancer and Obesity with Charlie Rose. Please focus on interviewing techniques. How might you be able to apply what you learn here towards your expert interviews for our projects?
Congrats to everyone for surviving the midterm! ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
The first interview about cancer research was very debate-like with many views coming from everyone. I found the topic difficult to understand and sometimes the messages a little hard to follow. The people talking about cancer were experts in the field and seemed to be approaching the topic as if they were talking to others with an equal understanding of cancer. I found the interview a little slow and confusing.
Charlie Rose’s interviewing techniques did not help much either. He tended to look down a lot and not at the people he was interviewing. He was always reading and not showing eye contact and at times even interrupted. The guests were in different places and I think this also made the interview hard to follow, it would have been nice to see them more in a panel format or at least show the layout more often. Watching his interview techniques made me aware of how important active listening and body language are.
The second interview on the other hand was much more cohesive and easy to follow. Even though the guests were experts they addressed the topic at a level that everyone can understand and made all points very clear and easy to understand. This interview was much more informative and I think people who watch it will get a lot more out of it. This helped me understand how much more people can get out of an interview just by the way things are worded. The idea is not to confuse people but to communicate a message and that can be done by simplifying ideas for everyone’s benefit.
I agree with what jamie said. However, I do like something that he does which is he remains ambivalent to the person he is talking to. This is something I feel that he can do because he is interviewing more than one person at a time like people for using bio-markers for cancer and people against it due to budget. In playing the two sides off of one another I feel that he evokes further information that may not have been revealed.
On another note I do like he breaks down all of the medical jargon.
But Jamie is right in the sense of his physical mannerisms and candor. He stinks...he cuts people off while they're talking, he changes the subject while they're answering him, he is always looking down but hey maybe he gets ratings or whatever.
The War on Cancer: Charlie Rose spoke rather quickly--including during the introduction. What Charlie had to say was very limited and by speaking too fast it did not help understand his direction.
Furthermore, he often interrupted the panel as they spoke-- for example, when Clifton Leaf recounted his personal experience with cancer; or, when Andrew Leaf began discussing major problems he perceived. Charlie interrupted and gave his opinion at times where, I believe, he could have passively participated and obtained more discussion/information from the panel.
However, Charlie Rose did at least summarize some statements for confirmation...so, as the listener, Charlie was able to reflect his listening and thinking processes. Although it may have seemed as though he was disengaged (little eye contact as he read questions) he was obviously able to show some involvement.Likewise, he must have been paying attention to nonverbal cues when he called on Andrew Leaf after acknowledging that he had a concerned look on his face.
The War on Obesity: A far better interview from the beginning...he had more eye contact and even used some body language to draw in viewer. He made it clear that he was present to learn from the guests and he let arguments run their course more—less interrupting. He, overall, just seemed more encouraging for the experts to share information and their thoughts/feelings.
I feel as though this interview/discussion is difficult to follow with experts who are not considering their audience. They seem to jump around a lot. They also keep referring to ‘the article.’ To me, this closes out a huge percentage of their audience who might then say, “Well, I don’t know that article, so I can’t understand this.” However, it is possible to understand the argument without the article, but by bringing it up, they are losing their audience. It is important that they address this issue in a manner which the majority of their audience can follow and comprehend. It also seems very evident that no one in this interview is practicing active listening skills. Everyone just seems to be preparing their next comment even to the point of interrupting one another. Charlie Rose in particular seems very disengaged.
Interestingly enough, during the second discussion on obesity, Charlie Rose seems very engaged. It seems as though this topic is of more interest to him. He is doing a much better job of practicing active listening. He is repeating what they are saying and confirming he is listening and understanding by saying things such as, “Right” and asking further questions about their comments. I also feel these individuals did a wonderful job at simplifying the discussion to engage the audience. I feel as though the obesity discussion is much more likely to turn a person to the more systematic manner of thinking.
I thought that the Charlie Rose segment we watched showed some interesting perspectives on how people view the “war on cancer” and obesity. I think the two guests that were interviewed illustrated to valid yet very distinct approaches to not only the prevention and treatment of cancer, but to the medical field. It became very argumentative I think because of the interviewing style as well as the emotional nature of topic. In the obesity segment I thought that both guests showed a balance between the influence of biology and genetics on obesity, as well as personal responsibility. It was more of a free flowing discussion as opposed to the previous more contentious segment. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that there was more of a consensus on the topic unlike the war on cancer piece where there were two opposing views
Well I agree with what looks like the consensus from classmates so far, that the first interview was much more difficult to follow than the second. It seemed as if this segment was geared to a more educated and professional audience. However, I believe the second interview on cancer did a better job of explaining the topic to the non-medical professional. The first interview on cancer became almost argumentative and did not take into account that the audience may not have as much education on the topic as they assume. Maybe it is because I know more about obesity that I had a harder time understanding the first interview? But I feel as if a good interview should be at least organized in a way that if a layperson were to watch it they could follow the general conversation. Also, it did not seem as if Charlie Rose was practicing active listening. I believe his interruptions and lack of eye contact set a negative tone for the entire interview.
I agree with the general consensus of the class as well. The first interview, The War on Cancer, was difficult to follow at times. I feel as if the participants were all over the place and were not really addressing the issue from a perspective that audience members could, or would want to, relate to. It almost became a debate between the participants with no regard to the audience.
Also, Charlie Rose did not do what I consider the best job interviewing during the War on Cancer segment. He kept interrupting the people being interviewed, which was extremely rude and disrespectful. Also, he was kind of insensitive to Andrew Grove, the chairman of Intel Corp. and a cancer survivor. Andrew was obviously upset and understandable emotionally connected to the topic. Charlie Rose tended to dismiss this by interrupting him and not letting him express himself thoroughly. Also, during that interview he had very poor eye contact and body language with the people he was interviewing. He seemed less than thrilled to be there conducting that interview, and even if that was how he felt, it should not have come across to the participants or the audience.
The second segment, The War on Obesity, was better in that Charlie Rose seemed more interested in the topic and his participants. This was expressed by his body language, the increase in eye contact, and the slower, less rushed pace which also made it easier to follow.
I really had a hard time focusing in the first interview for cancer. I really don't think that the panel was including the everyday layperson. I don't know if the program was for just medical professionals or not. Charlie was not the best moderator. He kept cutting his panel off and he did not always look at his panel while talking to them, starting on new a direction before letting his panel finish. Just very hard to follow because it really was no structure to the program.
The obesity panel was better but it could have been because I knew more of what they were talking about. They did seem to try and put there answers for the most part laymen terms. Much better at expressing themselves then the other panel.
I thought the "War on Cancer" brought out some interesting points about research and success in the cancer field. One such a point was best summed by the quote: "This is a systems problem, and it will require a systems solution." Science is progressing everyday, but we need a better method of integrating new information and technology into our health care systems. I also agree that while scientific clinical trials are very important, there needs to be a shift of resources to prevention and early intervention. It seems our society is one-minded in its approach to treatment of all medical conditions: drugs! While drugs are very important, many cancers are PREVENTABLE. More money should be pumped into public health!! :0)
The "Obesity" segment left me flustered, shaking my head in disappointment. I thought the segment was extremely one-sided, for an issue that is complex and has a plethora of components. Both guests highlighted biological mechanisms of survival as the main 'cause' for obesity. This is simply not the case. Yes, we are hard-wired to eat, to want sweet and fat, and to reproduce. Yes, our bodies like to hold on to fat- in the same way they have for thousands of years. This has not changed. What HAS changed, along with increasing rates of obesity, is our LIFESTYLES, i.e. behavior! This is the key! Yes, if you try to lose weight it will be difficult because of mechanisms that are hard-wired. But- as the doctors pointed out weight loss and gain is a simple equation of energy in vs. energy out. People CAN and WILL lose weight if they alter their behavior. The main problem is that behavior does not occur in a vaccuum, and it is influenced by environment, and by psychological components such as stress, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, etc. This is what needs to change. THis is what needs to be addressed.
What really got me going was at the end of this interview when one of the doctors said "Help is on the way." Are people supposed to sit around and wait until somebody in a laboratory figures out the genetic 'reason' for obesity? In the meantime, they should continue to lead the same unhealthy lifestyles that has brought them to a situation in which they have diabetes, or are at risk for cardiovascular disease, etc. because... don't you worry, help is on the way! No, help is here. It has always been here. It is within us, it is in our knowledge, our attitude, and our intentions. We each have the power to make our own lives healthier, and we have the power to seek help to understand the issues we may be facing that contribute to obeisty. And as a society/government/health professionals should make it so that it is easier for people to lead healthier lives through environmental and structural changes, changes in our conception of self-worth and beauty, societal pressures, stress, anxiety, and other pressures that influence our health.
The best thing that came out of that segment was advice to those trying to lose weight: 'Don't hate yourself'. That is the first step. Without it, no success will be realized, in any aspect of life.
The first segment of Charlie Rose and the War on Cancer, was difficult to follow. There was not a good flow of communication, and the different people being interviewed seemed to be going back and forth with out enough interjectioln from Charle Rose. I think the interview would have been easier to understand if it would have been more structured and not so much of the back and forth.
Conversely, I found the Obesity section much easier to follow and more enjoyable. Charlie Rose did a good job in paraphrasing and adding to the experts explanantions, which was useful in clarifying what was said. Also, the tempo was slower and there was not the interrupting which helped me to focus on what was said.
As others have mentioned the first session was more of a debate and harder to view in terms of our interview assignment. Rose was doing his job the best he could as it was slowly taken over by participants. He was taking notes and using them to jump into or redirect/reinterpret conversation. He also used them to create questions for other participants before the conversation went into full swing. The biggest draw back of that though is that his head stayed downward the entire time. You could tell he was struggling to keep up.
In the second session Rose presented as more of a facilitator and active listener. He was engaged both physically and even more so in the conversation. This was evident based on his body language and his eye contact. It was obvious that he had already versed himself in topic of obesity, which helped him to make clarifications as needed to assist viewers. He also did an excellent job here of projecting his voice and his words were well articulated.
In both sessions he was dressed like the rest of the participants and appeared to be from a similar demographic background. They were all held in the same setting which seemed appropriate b/c of lack of distractions especially since topics were advanced and confusing at times.
I agree with what most of the people have already said.. It was very difficult for me to understand the first part of the interview. And i think that Charlie Rose didn't really interview the guests. It was more of a debate between the various people. And when Charlie did want to speak he often interrupted others to get across his point. It was really difficult to get an idea of the interviewing techniques from the first part.It would be very difficult for a layman to concentrate in this part of the interview.In contrast Charlie was very much involved in the second part of the show. I got the feeling that Charlie was more interested in the discussion about Obesity and thats the reason he was more involved. I also think that in the Cancer part since there was as guest which wasn't in the studio that also affected the way the discussion flowed.
In the Obesity part of the show Charlie further pressed on issues so as to make the topic easier for people to understand.
I also agree with everyone who has posted so far. Charlie Rose's interview techniques in the first part were rude and did not facilitate a cohesive discussion on the topic. He seemed impatient with Andy Grove who took a little longer to express his views on the topic. I think he could've done better moderating the discussion by not cutting people off, having better eye contact, and using less aggressive tones. The second part of the video was much more interesting to watch because it was easier to follow and was more informative as opposed to argumentative. Charlie Rose gave good eye contact, had a pleasant demeanor, and positive body language throughout.
Miss Tina Koro brought up a good point about how the discussion was one sided. They fail to recognize behavior and the environment as factors in the obesity epidemic. People's reliance on new science and "quick-fixes" only exacerbate the problem!
I would use the techniques of active listening when interviewing expert and participants. In the video Charlie Rose the War on Cancer/Obesity, there were controversial views, which ultimately distracted viewers from the real issues at hand. I would format the interview with first allowing the participant to provide insight on the background of cancer survivors and lifestyle changes. I would then move in the direction of implementing the questions that I came up with to draw more of a focus.
When interviewing my expert and participant, I will provide structure and decrease my views and or personal feelings of the subject at hand.
During the the cancer interview, charlie rose did a decent job facilitating the four men being interviewed especially in that they were all coming from different perspectives. In the short time given I think he did well summarizing the points and giving everyone fair time to comment while trying to keep the conversation moving forward. In addition to summarizing Charlie made eye contact when addressing each of the men, yet while they were speaking tended to keep his head down. This may have come off as he was concnetrating more on what to do next rather than listening.
As for the obesity portion, I think the job of interviewer was much easier especially that both men seemed to agree more than not. Overall, I feel Charlie was able to keep his personal bias out both interviews.
“War on Cancer”
My thought was that it was difficult to follow the flow of the conversation. I felt like Charlie Rose, Dr. Harold Varmus, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Clifton Leaf, and Andrew Grove were all over the place with their topics. It was not cohesive. I felt like each side was not giving a clear detail on their proposals. For example, they used the word “prioritize” but what do we need to prioritize. What was it? I did not hear any actual ideas of what needs to be in place to decrease cancer. This clip was like watching the presidential debates, where the opponents did not know how to deal with the problem and were beating around the bush.
“Obesity”
Charlie Rose looked more engage and active in this clip. Biologicial factors are one of the factors that contribute to obesity but there are other factors that were not discussed. For example, lifestyles and environments can affect obesity. I also noticed that the man stated “help is on its way.” I agreed with Tina that help is already here. It is the need for individual empowerment, self-efficacy, knowledge, attitude to help people make better healthier choices.
I feel like the interviewer approached the experts in an agressive way. For a moment I felt like it was very similar to a political debate, with lots of disagreements and opinions. The interviewer kept very strict with the questions and his body language seem engaging. It shows how tone of voice, body language and the questions are key factors to an interview. He kept the experts very engaged. I don't think many people would be engaged because it seems to be aimed at other experts in the field. The interviewer interrupted a lot and seem to be kind of a "devil's advocate".
The second interview was more comprehensive to the public and the way it was set up where one can see Charlie Rose, the experts and even the table made it seem more like a conversation and not like a regular interview. Charlie Rose's questions such as, "what can you advise people?" were very good because it is a way to engage people in the interview.
Charlie Rose was more calm in the second interview as compared to the first. It made me realize how different one can come out when interviewing just by changing a couple of key factors such as tone, body language and questions.
The Charlie Rose segment was very interesting and demonstrated several key tactics and strategies that may help to facilitate a group interview. The setting at the round table established a comfortable and relaxed tone. Mr. Rose remained neutral yet engaged with all the interviewees. He maintained eye contact with the designated speaker and he leaned in to show interest and attention. He opened the interview with questions for each guest that related to either their personal experience as a patient or expert. Allowing each guest to share their personal investment in the issue seemed to help engage each person in the discussion. In order to keep the discussion flowing, he directed questions to specific people and when needed interjected a paraphrase of what had been said and turned it into a question to keep the participants on topic. When an interviewee was not answering a question directly or sufficiently, he would ask leading questions with a comparison included in it so that the interviewee had to make a choice and respond. Paraphrasing was utilized frequently to summarize the general direction of the discussion, areas of agreement among the participants, discordant areas among the participants, and as lead in to new questions to ponder and discuss. Overall, I felt he was an effective facilitator who engaged the participants and managed to maintain a positive and productive discussion that shed light on the breadth of each topic.
The first interview was harder to follow than the second. Still, it was interesting to see how he used the information he was getting from one person, to get more information from the other ---using the active listening technique of summarizing the interviewees responses.
Putting the technical/medical terms in simple terms was helpful for the viewer/audience to make sense of the arguments, but all the jumping around from topic to topic and interrupting made the interview seem slightly hostile. I did notice that Charlie didn’t look at his interviewees all of the time, so that wasn’t a good example of actively listening to an interviewee.
The obesity discussion didn’t focus too much on lifestyle change. It seemed the idea of genetics was the key to unlock the mystery of obesity. I wish they would have talked more about prevention.
The first interview was very debate-like, like many 663 students have mentioned already. However, a lot of useful & important information on cancer was exchanged between interviewees and interviewer. What concerned me the most was his interviewing style & technique which did not meet my standards of a professional interview. He lacked in many areas such as eye contact, body language and tone of voice, which are essential in a setting such as this one. The second interview was very different and seemed more realistic of a professional interview. He let the interviewees speak without interruption and took in what they had to say without appearing being aggressive.
Overall, what I can apply towards my future expert interview is to show interest, be patient, allow them to speak without interruption, maintain eye contact, display proper body language and most importantly, maintain an inviting, yet professional tone of voice.
I'm very disappointed with the first debate about cancer. I felt that Charlie did not do a good job of moderating the panel interview and opening the environment. He rudely interrupts Clifton Leaf when he was talking about his cancer experience. I felt that this was a great part of the video where the lay audience could relate to. Also, they kept talking about an article that I'm sure the audience has not read yet and they just kept rambling on and on about it. Throughout the panel interview, Charlie also interrupts Dr. Harold Varmus, President & CEO, Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Director, The National Cancer Institute when they start talking about the progress of cancer research. Overall, this first interview was poorly done. Charlie had poor active listening skills and did not show as much interest in this topic as he does in the next topic, obesity.
In the second interview, his body language and active listening skills dramatically improve from the first interview. It seems that Charlie shows more interest in this topic and it was easier to follow than the first one. The experts on obesity were able to speak in lay terms so that the majority of the audience could better understand the problems and rise of obesity. This was a much better interview because Charlie provided a more open environment where experts could exchange their ideas amongst each other.
In the first segment of the interview which handled the “war on cancer”, I believe Charlie rose did a mistake many interviewers unfortunately do. This happens when too many people who have different opinions and backgrounds about an issue are interviewed at the same time. I believe He would have done a better job at interviewing and at educating the public if he had interviewed cancer survivors, who of course take the issue more personally, at one time and interviewed the medical professionals at another time. On the other hand, if the interviewer was interested in making a hot debate for the sake of TV ratings that is exactly what has been done.
Even if I was lucky enough to find a cancer patient as a participant and his/ her own doctor as an expert to interview, I wouldn’t even think of interviewing them at the same time.
In the war on obesity interview, we see how an interview should really be carried out. Both of the interviewees were very knowledgeable experts in the field and used a vocabulary everyone could understand. Also, the interviewer’s active listening capabilities are shown to be better in this segment.
The video was very interesting. I thought the show was made more interesting by having people with debating views. It was interesting watching Charlie Rose and applying his skills to what we have learned in class. He definately has to be a little more assertive to mediate the group and keep track of time. It was pretty interesting hearing some of the statements Andy said, calling cancer research a "wishful dream." But I do think that it is true that the strategy needs to change. More resources need to be allocated into prevention of cancer. Charlie Rose also has to clarifty statements at some points and direct the converstation in the right direction. In the second interview, he did his research my mentioning he had heard or read about a gene that was related to people's urge to eat. This allowed him to continue to move the conversation. Overall, I thought he was an active listener, but also was very assertive in his style.
These two interviews were very different, and Charlie Rose's interview style seemed to change from the first to the second. The second interview on obesity was more successful in providing valuable information and understanding about the issue. With only two guests, instead of four, Charlie Rose facilitated the discussion better than in the first interview. In the first interview he repeatedly interrupted his guests and did not always make eye contact when asking questions. He was listening to the conversation and responding to comments with further questioning, but would sometimes stumble over his wording to these questions. He did less of these things in the second interview.
When conducting my expert interviews, it will be important to respect the expert and convey my interest, avoid interruptions, and pose questions at appropriate times.
The War on Cancer Charlie Rose spoke rather quickly espeically during the introduction. He was very limited and by speaking too fast. This didn't help us understand his direction. He interrupted the panel as they spoke. Charlie interrupted and gave his opinion at times where I feel he could had the panel discuss it more.He at summarized some statements for confirmation. He reflected his opinions. He showed some involvement with the discussion but didn't have any eye contact. Didn't do so good on the war on cancer. The War on Obesity was a far better interview. There was more eye contact and even used some body language to draw in viewer. It seemed like he was more encouraging for the experts to share information and their thoughts/feelings.There was major differences between the two videos and it was clear to see it.
During the first interview I noticed that Rose looked down a lot and sometimes interrupted his guests. I believe this was happening because he had so many guests to listen to and consider all of their opinions. I'm sure it is necessary to interrupt to keep the interview on track and his guests on the same page. What I liked was that he remained unbiased throughout. I did not get the impression that he was supportive of any particular guest. I totally agree with Ashley above regarding audience attention. I, at first, was a little frustrated that I had not read the article they were speaking of. I felt like they were probably losing the audience because the "interview" became a debate between these quests and not an informative session for the audience.
I definately observed more successful interviewing techniques in the second interview. I noticed more eye contact and less of a need for him to interrupt and push the conversation one way or another. I liked that he summed up the points of the guests and all in all I thought it was a much more successful interview.
Charlie Rose did a very challenging task by interviewing multiple experts and survivors at the same time. The interview was very informative and showed different perspectives on how people view the war on cancer. Unfortunately, it was a little bit hard to follow and at times there was no organization and people kept on talking over each other’s voices. It seemed as experts where arguing and questioning each other’s statements while interrupting each other. This makes it hard for the audience to follow. I think they should be more conscious about their viewers and make a collective effort to get their messages across while addressing the audience, acknowledging other’s point of views in a respectful and professional manner.
M
Lastly, I will be interviewing a cancer patient and when I do it, I will make sure that I practice effective and active listening skills. Most importantly, I will NOT tell my interviewee that he is angry and demanding like Charlie Rose did with the cancer survivor.
Charlie Rose in both "interviews" acted more as a facilitator rather than an interviewer. In the first interview, I felt that it should have been done in front of a live audience where other medical doctors and cancer-survivor patients could have asked more questions and had more input. It was obvious that the distinction was between cancer researchers vs. cancer survivors who were unhappy with the way cancer research was being utilized. The cancer-survivors were questioning and criticizing the cancer research community, while the cancer researchers were defending what they were doing. It is a difficult problem to address; I feel that the cancer research in the United States is doing an amazing job at advancing in our fight against cancer. I don't think that enough cancer patients or cancer survivors are being educated on how to be advocates for themselves. At the end of the discussion, Charlie Rose mentioned that it is about "education and research". I agree that the research is vital to combating cancer, along with educating patients with what is available and how to use the research for their benefit.
The second discussion seemed more like an interview than a debate. Charlie Rose sought more understanding and information from the two experts. What they had to say was very interesting. My aunts, uncles' cousins, and grandparents on my father's side of the family struggle with being overweight and obese. I know that I' am not immune to the same fate that they have, which makes me very cautious to live a healthy lifestyle. Maybe, I' am the exception in my family, but I don't believe we were "genetically" created to be overweight and obese. I think through our fast-food, sedentary lifestyles that we have become a gluttonous and consumptive society that has in a sense brought this obesity epidemic among ourselves.
The two interviews were indeed different in their format and style.
I agree with some of the posts on here in that the first one, "War on Cancer" was very much dbate-like. Here, Charlie seem to take on the role of a mediator as well as an interviewer. He did a great job as far as trying to make some of the points more clear to the audience, by at times paraphrasing the points the guest speakers were trying to communicate, and also by re-emphasizing the strong/provocative points of the arguments form both sides. Charlie specailly did a good job of clarifying the message that Andy was trying to covey, I really appreciated, because Andy's speech was a bit difficult to understand. I liked Cliff's statemnt of how cancer should be approached as "a war on terror"- this emphasized the significance of the problem. The big issue at hand seemed to be are we doing enough with the resources we have to find a cure and treat cancer patients. Andy seems to think that the the distribution of funding for cancer research is ineficiently spent, and that there needs to be a reform of some sort in the cancer establishment in itself. On the other-hand, the physicians were trying to point out that although we have not come as far as finding a cure, we research has made progress to the point of understanding a lot more about cancer that we did before- (i.e. early detection, and tailored clinical trials).
The "Obesity" interview seemd to be a more friendlier format. he two physicians were informative, and they kept the concersation simple in terms so that the lay person can at least somewhat grasp what they were trying to say. They repeatedly sent out important messages to the lay person, based on what they have found from their research (i.e. the big message at the end- "Don't hate yourself if your are obese. It's worth trying to loose weight even though it's going to be very difficult, becaue at the end, it will save you signifiant health problems. But if you are trying to loose weight, expect small amount of change like loosing 5-10% of body fact, and know that that's okay". ) I found this statement by Dr. Luis to be very fascinating: " Societies that have gone through famine are more likely to produce obese people" because here it seems like he's talking about natural selection! So all in all, the argument was that obesity is disease. It's wrong to blame it all on people's free will, although ultimately it is up to the person to decide to take on some behavioral modifications, biology is has made it hard on us. I did find this second interview much easire to enjoy, perhaps because it focused on informing rather than trying to prove a point. I also thought Charlie did a great job here in making it easier on the audience to comprehend the issues (i.e. by asking the experts to define the difference between obesity vs. overweight).
All in all, I found both interviews to be a great learning epxperience personally, because not only did I get to observe and learn some great espert interview techniques, but I also learned some facinating facts about latest research on obesity and cancer.
Post a Comment