Phone interview: Chérif Kouachi claims Paris terror plot financed by al-Qaeda
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11337155/Phone-interview-Cherif-Kouachi-claims-terror-plot-financed-by-al-Qaeda.html
Chérif Kouachi, one of the two brothers who killed 12 in a massacre at French magazine Charlie Hebdo this week tells TV news channel BFM-TV he received financing by al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen
The importance of this particular interview is to get coverage on the recent incident (killing of 12 people), trying to understand the terrorist's reason behind the killings. The role it plays is to show everyone that these people who have killed have done it for what they believe is a good reason, that they have killed to avenge their prophet as they believed these people did no good. This interview's content is also important, as we find out about the terrorists more - why and who they kill, who they don't and for what reason. Another role this interview plays is to feed information to the audience who read and watch this magazine online, as they are given an insight to the goings on. This interview unlike many, is very controversial and rare, due to the fact the subject is about the interviewee killing twelve people along with his brother. For this reason we can see that the importance is to understand their side, as we're usually not able to have this sort of information from the actual source of the crime, it is usually fed through an array of media platforms, through journalists then onto either newspapers or television. This interview is also very important in the way that it presents the terrorists, such as developing understanding and for the interview to go into more detail about the incident so the public know as much information about it as possible. I feel that the terrorist's use of their religion and culture, using it as the reason for their killing spree is a form of emotional manipulation as I feel some of the public who share these cultural views/religious views as the terrorists may see the reasoning. On the other hand, this could cause a lot of trouble as the people who are not supportive of these beliefs may see their religion in a different light/negative light, which I feel would cause a lot of complications for many people of the same religion.
Throughout the interview, both open and closed questions have been used. In the instances where the conversation seemingly pauses after the terrorist has talked, the interviewer asks a question which develops the conversations so he is able to get as much information from him as possible. In many ways, this interview is more like a conversation than an array of questions, as the interviewer makes statements rather than asking questions as the interviewee pretty much gives him all the information he needs and is very detailed in his answers. When it comes to closed questions, they are used in instances such as when the interviewer asks the terrorist whether he had killed anyone that morning, where the terrorist plainly answers killed who? which differs from a open answered question because if it was an open question, the terrorist would have gone into a lot more detail like we had seen from the rest of the interview and the interviewer would have asked a longer question which may have two questions within it. Suggestive questions have also been a theme throughout this interview, in instances such as when the interviewer mentions that he had killed 12 people, which suggests to the interviewee that everyone thinks he is going to do it again/suggests that is what is going to happen.
This interview isn't a conventional structure, as no confidence building is evident between the interviewee and interviewer. It comes across as 'strictly business' or that neither party is happy with each other and they are simply doing their job - for the interviewee, it is getting his point across, why when and how he killed the 12 people in the terrorist attack. For the interviewer, it is important in this instance to get as much information from this person without building rapport between them, as the nature of the interviewer isn't usual for an interview and is very rare, but he remains calm and collective. To summarize this interview, I feel its main purpose is to help either party. The interviewee needs to deliver information and the interviewer needs to collect and disperse this information to the public as correctly as possible, so by doing a phone interview a). the interviewer is safe b.) he is able to refer to the information correctly that the interviewee has said and c). it can become knowledgeable to the public of the reason behind the actions of the terrorist.
The communication between the interviewer and interviewee is pretty basic as neither of them builds an emotional relationship between one another. This is based on the fact that the subject of this interview is a touchy subject and isn't something that either party feels as though they have to get to know each other about and I don't feel they would want to either. There is no sign of the interviewer even trying to build rapport with the interviewee, which I feel is to do with the fact he has been personally effected/upset by the actions of the terrorist and his ignorance to what he has done, which is understandable when looking at what they are talking about in the first place. The interviewer talks to the interviewee as if he doesn't understand him, which quite a questioning tone which I feel would make the interviewee feel angry/stupid and make him feel uncomfortable talking further about what he had done. The interviewee is able to listen well and lets the interviewee speak quite a lot which is important as the purpose of the interview is to extract information about the terrorist attack and occasionally with the interviewer trying to push the interviewee into saying more about the incident by questioning him after each question.
Throughout the interview, both open and closed questions have been used. In the instances where the conversation seemingly pauses after the terrorist has talked, the interviewer asks a question which develops the conversations so he is able to get as much information from him as possible. In many ways, this interview is more like a conversation than an array of questions, as the interviewer makes statements rather than asking questions as the interviewee pretty much gives him all the information he needs and is very detailed in his answers. When it comes to closed questions, they are used in instances such as when the interviewer asks the terrorist whether he had killed anyone that morning, where the terrorist plainly answers killed who? which differs from a open answered question because if it was an open question, the terrorist would have gone into a lot more detail like we had seen from the rest of the interview and the interviewer would have asked a longer question which may have two questions within it. Suggestive questions have also been a theme throughout this interview, in instances such as when the interviewer mentions that he had killed 12 people, which suggests to the interviewee that everyone thinks he is going to do it again/suggests that is what is going to happen.
This interview isn't a conventional structure, as no confidence building is evident between the interviewee and interviewer. It comes across as 'strictly business' or that neither party is happy with each other and they are simply doing their job - for the interviewee, it is getting his point across, why when and how he killed the 12 people in the terrorist attack. For the interviewer, it is important in this instance to get as much information from this person without building rapport between them, as the nature of the interviewer isn't usual for an interview and is very rare, but he remains calm and collective. To summarize this interview, I feel its main purpose is to help either party. The interviewee needs to deliver information and the interviewer needs to collect and disperse this information to the public as correctly as possible, so by doing a phone interview a). the interviewer is safe b.) he is able to refer to the information correctly that the interviewee has said and c). it can become knowledgeable to the public of the reason behind the actions of the terrorist.
The communication between the interviewer and interviewee is pretty basic as neither of them builds an emotional relationship between one another. This is based on the fact that the subject of this interview is a touchy subject and isn't something that either party feels as though they have to get to know each other about and I don't feel they would want to either. There is no sign of the interviewer even trying to build rapport with the interviewee, which I feel is to do with the fact he has been personally effected/upset by the actions of the terrorist and his ignorance to what he has done, which is understandable when looking at what they are talking about in the first place. The interviewer talks to the interviewee as if he doesn't understand him, which quite a questioning tone which I feel would make the interviewee feel angry/stupid and make him feel uncomfortable talking further about what he had done. The interviewee is able to listen well and lets the interviewee speak quite a lot which is important as the purpose of the interview is to extract information about the terrorist attack and occasionally with the interviewer trying to push the interviewee into saying more about the incident by questioning him after each question.
