Thanks: for what?

Radio listeners and television viewers often hear interviewees say: “Thanks for having me on the show”.

This habit-driven phrase of reversed gratitude has become almost as commonplace as the traditional “How are you?” - little more than a piece of routine phraseology.

What it implies is: “despite my expertise in the subject we’re discussing, I would never normally get such a large number of people to hear me without your allowing me to appear on your programme”.

But that programme’s host or presenter is only using the guest’s presence as a component of entertainment, not as a result of any planned outcome of what may be a complex topic.

In some ways, this usage of an expert is the almost a stereotypical example of ‘horses for courses”.

What an interviewee really should say at the end of a segment is something like: “Thanks for recognising my familiarity with this and inviting me to explain it”.

Informational programme production relies heavily on the ability of a specialist to give an understanding about a topic far greater than the sometimes lesser knowledge of the presenter.

Otherwise; what is the point of inviting that speaker to participate in the first place? 

It’s important to recognise that there is a difference between an invited guest’s having some kind of special subject knowledge, compared to a reporter’s fact-seeking questioning.

Most programme hosts have a wide but generalised grasp of current events without necessarily a specific special understanding, making them a bit like the clichéd ‘jack of all trades, master of none’.

Nonetheless, they do have the ability to recognise what their audiences need to know, and can draw out from their guest information and facts which will supply that audience’s need, as well as to gain a broad ranging response to questioning.

Also, they normally are well educated and have a good command of language and its subtleties of expression; this can communicate more readily than a direct answer to a question.

Very often, programme presenters have had prior experience as journalists with the attendant ability to seek out and report facts, as well having as a strong gut feeling about truth.

Our society is deluged with an enormous information supply, and many of us could know many facts about many topics, yet not have detailed understanding about any one of them.

This is why news and current affairs reportage is so necessary. It helps to solidify comprehension, and consolidate a myriad of disparate details in order for the listener, or viewer, to decide the truth behind the report. Nonetheless we appear to be unable to let go of societal manipulation enough to recognise whether a phrase of gratitude is genuine, or just the kind of routine response expected as part of the participation in an interview.

Rather, we seem to adhere to a conditioned habit of thanking the presenter for inviting us, instead of recognising that it is we who are doing that presenter the service of joining an interview, thus contributing to the show.

The meaning of the word “interview” lies at the basis of the relationship between host and guest.

An interview can be described as a conversation between a journalist or radio or television presenter and a person of public interest, used as the basis of a broadcast or publication.

The word’s origin lies in early 16^th century French term “entrevue”, derived from the phrase “s’entrevoir’, “see each other”. That phrase was built from “voir’, to see, and “vue”, a view. Thus an interview or discussion in the electronic media is the attempt to see a point of view, or to gain some amplifying detail about a matter.

Sometimes, the interaction between a presenter and an expert can take the form of a debate, in which formal discussion on a particular topic sees opposing arguments put forward to argue for alternative viewpoints.

 This is less the case on news and current affairs broadcasts where the presenter’s personal opinions are downplayed, but more common on public discussion programming where the host often encourages dissenting views. Logical consistency, factual accuracy, and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are elements where one side often prevails over the other party by presenting a superior "context" or framework of the issue.

There are a number of presenters in both radio and television with the skill and experience to draw out from their guests admissions which would not normally be made. This technique has seen an entire skill set of media awareness training evolve to help key administrators and executives understand better how accomplished interviewers attempt to gain statements about their guests’ respective organisations which would never be made otherwise.

Yet it is still often surprising to hear someone say at the conclusion of what may have been a rigorous piece of media cross examination: “Thanks for having me on the show”.

What should really be said ought to be by the show’s host to show gratitude for the appearance by saying: “Thanks – I hope you enjoyed talking to me”.

The habit of reversal of gratitude is fairly entrenched and is generally reinforced by its continual acceptance and use by people who really should be asking themselves who is doing the favour for whom?

This is where I’ll conclude my thoughts and opinion.

“Thanks for reading this opinion.”