Hostile (?) Radio Interview - The Rutherford Show

[Widow]

Well this was a first for me. Most of you know I've done a lot of interviews over the last few years, for radio, print and the televised press. I got a message on Tuesday asking me to do a radio interview on Wednesday morning for "The Rutherford Show", a Calgary based live radio program. Not living in Calgary, I was not familiar with the show or it's host ... and, well, frankly, my suspicions should have been raised when no-one wanted to do a pre-interview. In any case, I've learned my lesson and will always be sure in future to do some research and find out in advance what kind of interview I can expect.

After listening to the interview, my Dad commented on the "ill-concealed facist hostility of the interviewer" but also said that "had it been a debate, he was down in flames". I'd be interested to hear what folks here think, and if anyone has any advice on how to handle an "hostile interview" in the future.

Here's a link: Kirsten Stevens on "The Rutherford Show".

[aileron]

Hello Kirsten,

As per the interview I think you conducted yourself well, but I could detect a sense of nervousness in your voice (clearing of throat)... were you? Did you have some foreknowledge of the type of interviewer you were going to have... this may have led to some discomfort. Also, not sure if it was the recording but it sounded like you might have been on a cell phone? I'm sure you know, but always have a glass of water ready to help your voice and if on a cell make sure you're in a comfortable setting not somewhere that has distraction.

Anyway I could sense in the interviewer his possible stance with several follow up comments "Well, Okay..." then dropping off and letting you continue. But I believe you hit a target audience in his voice of complete disbelief that our industry is faltering. A few examples:

1) His disbelief that maintenance may be deferred (he gave some extravagant examples, like bolts).

2) His inflection in voice to the fact that the traveling public are getting services rendered between Vancouver and Ottawa at a much lower price than the reality of even the cost of fuel.

3) His possible stance that good government is brought by skimmed services, let the industry self regulate.

When being interviewed by this type, know first that he isn't the expert, you are. Slay the prejudiced interviewer with little known evidence or examples that cannot be refuted. Unfortunately the guy with the mic is going to always win, cause he can have the final say... so leave an interview with an open question.

Overall the interview went well, I believe, and as mentioned earlier this hit a target market of mostly uninformed sheep who rely on others (the wrong kind, usually) for what should be their own well informed opinions. As the only criticism to the interview, maybe add more examples - something the public at large may not know, but should. With items above, you could say 1) It's common to defer items in the 705 realm, and is safe; but in the 702/3 there often isn't recognized MELs and a lot of decisions on replacement items are done after the fact; 2) Airlines, are continually losing hundreds of millions of dollars... could there be another reason such as unreasonable expectations of travel costs by the public and poorly run marketing and accounting practices...; 3) Good government cost savings, with respect to the Listeria outbreak or Walkerton, or years and years and years ago the Triangle Shirtwaist industrial accident that have pointed to lack of good government's safety oversights.

Keep up the great work, you're doing a fine job.

[JayVee]

Hi Kirsten,

I listened to your interview and I think you conducted yourself quite well. The guy obviously loves the sound of his own voice. There were condescending tones especially when he expressed his disbelief that companies would compromise safety to save a buck, but you handled him well. I have no doubt that you could feed him his lunch.

This industry has a long way to go until safety takes the lead over profit. Until that happens we, the employees and the public can use all the help we can get.

Everyone likes prosperity but if you can't afford to be safe then get the f@ck out of business.

Kudos to you on advocating what's right.

JV

[Jastapilot]

I've listened to Rutherford for a long time(off and on) and he was taking it easy on you. I think he's having trouble believing you and he can only think of the big airlines when he's asking you a question. Overall I thought it was a very good interview, but when you went off on a tangent with your YVR-YOW for 200 bucks example(and Southwest), I thought that was off base and unnecessary. SMS is alive and well in the airlines, IMO, and I think a 703 operation, like you said, needs the more classic style inspections and stricter regulation.

As a guy who's worked 703/704 and now 705, each level is in a world of it's own, with it's own standard of safety. I also believe, from what I've seen/experienced, that each progressive level gets safer by an exponential margin.

[dashx]

Seemed to be a subdued and civil interview. He did let you talk. And talk you did.

[TheCheez]

Kirsten
You did well but I think the main problem is you were trying to have a good rational and informative discussion with him and that's really not what a lot of these shows are about. That's why he started trying to put words in your mouth etc. I'd recommend tuning your talking points into concise and attention grabbing examples or points that you'd like to highlight. The way you were speaking with Rutherford was at a CBC Radio level. Keep in mind that to the average listener, you're the subject expert, the host is going to try and poke you into saying something juicy, it's his job.

There's a few youtube vids of various people doing well or not well on right wing radio shows you should check out. Rutherford took it fairly easy on you, but if you plan to continue to be in the media you'll eventually come up on someone who won't.

[Widow]

Wow, I didn't expect so much input!

Thanks all, for comments and criticisms!

Hello Kirsten,

As per the interview I think you conducted yourself well, but I could detect a sense of nervousness in your voice (clearing of throat)... were you? Did you have some foreknowledge of the type of interviewer you were going to have... this may have led to some discomfort. Also, not sure if it was the recording but it sounded like you might have been on a cell phone?

Yes, I was nervous. Without the kind of pre-interview I had grown to expect, I didn't know what questions would be asked so there was no way to prepare myself to answer them effectively. Almost all interviews I've done in the past have been focused on those things which I do know better than just about anyone - i.e. the investigation of AQW. This is the first time I've done a live interview as an "air safety advocate". As a matter of note, they did first request an interview with someone else - who I'm sure would have done a much better job than I. That person recommended me as a substitute .... (No not a cell phone, just a bad line).

Plainly, in my point of view you were unwilling to defend your ground with direct conviction.

I hear what you are saying here ... and agree, kind of. If I had known Rutherford's style beforehand, I certainly would have known how to be prepared, and have been prepared, differently. As it was, I felt as though he was trying to trap me into making an inflammatory statement that would make me look like a tin-foil-hatter - or saying something I couldn't back up.

This is new ground for me, and a learning curve. If you've watched or listened or read any of my previous interviews/statements - for which I was prepared - I think you'd have found, at least for the most part, that I had no qualms about any of my "inflammatory" statements. The links you supplied, EngineGuy, don't really help - they aren't live interviews, but well prepared and researched statements and articles.

Anyway, thanks again for all the input! I'll do better next time - assuming there will be one - I promise!

[Giveitago]

Hi Kirsten

I think you might need to re title your thread heading, I don't think that I would classify that as a hostile radio interview in any way. As others have mentioned, Rutherford was if anything being quite gentle with you. I think he was doing his job well with giving you ample air time and allowing and even prompting full responses from you. Again, as others have mentioned you have to differentiate clearly between the large and small carriers, Joe Public will only be thinking of AC and WJ when listening to an interview about "Airline Safety".

Interesting to listen to, didn't catch it live so I didn't hear any of the feedback from callers but I think that for the first kick at the can on a radio interview you did well. But really, Rutherford didn't sound hostile at all to me.....

Good Luck

Give

[Widow]

Fair enough. Title edited, kinda As I've described - it felt hostile to me. A very different interview from any I'd done before.

As far as I heard, he moved on to something else after talking to me ... there were no callers after the segment.

[Cat Driver]

The only way to learn Kirsten is to do things.

You are doing things and learning fast.

The interview was difficult because you were unaware of what would come next.

All in all you did fine.

The big thing is the support you are getting from the aviation group here.

That is priceless.

This is something you may keep in mind as it is true.

I am a person who thinks we do not need more TC rules and regulations. What we need is better efficiency within TC, less resource waste, more rational use of the rules and regulations we have in place.

That poster had a valid point.

Keep it up, you are doing just fine.

[Jastapilot]

You are doing just fine, but I would concentrate on the 703's/704's of the world since that's closest to home for you anyways. Yes, SMS applies to all of us, but as far as I'm concerned, at the 705 level, SMS is working just fine(at least at my company.)

Keep up the good work, what you are doing is important.

[HS-748 2A]

The only way to learn Kirsten is to do things.

That is a true statement Cat and it's my biggest grievance with SMS and the regulatory system in general.

1) Experience: that lesson you get right after you needed it.

1a. Experience leads to good judgement
1b. Excercising bad judgement is the source of nearly all good experience

Perhaps all this belongs in a different thread but the whole trouble with SMS in the small-operator world is that they are trying to legislate judgement.

Only having been through "1b." above, will a person - AME or pilot, have the real tools to get the job done and done safely.

Training and company culture go a long way but no amount of paperwork will ever replace 1b.

As much as I admire Widow's tenacity, I do feel that it may be misguided.

[Widow]

HS-748_2A, I respect your opinion, and would like to know how you feel I'm misguided. In what sense? Please feel free to answer by PM if you prefer.

[GilletteNorth]

Kirsten, overall I thought it was a good interview.

I was wondering how you were going to finish your sentence said at 09:15 "instead of dealing with the problem they simply..."

At 10:00 you stated "...more often than not, money will override safety" and used an example of an accident that the average person might not be familiar with. I'm just curious because I don't know which accident you were referring to specifically. How did money override safety in the example? Has it been determined that decisions by management? to reduce cost (associated with maintenance or inspections or supervision or training?) were directly responsible for the accident you mentioned?

The statement "...money will override safety" is a generalization that you'll need to base in facts rather than an individual belief if you don't want to hear the disbelief in your interviewer's tone. Mr Rutherford immediately 'attacked' you on that point and you seemed to have to back up a bit. I prefer to believe that with most flights, any concerns are taken into consideration and the overall safety of the flight determines if the flight will go.

Safety in aviation is like safety in anything else. You have to decide what level of safety is acceptable because there are really too many unforeseen circumstances that can occur to try regulating everything to be 100% safe. Tell a pilot that he has to fly a flight with an aircraft that is missing 1/4 of the wing... that would be unsafe. Telling him to fly the same flight with an aircraft that isn't missing any parts but is getting close to the required maintenance cycle is not.

I'm not against your message of improving safety in aviation. I just think most accidents are a result of human errors or unintentional oversight rather than cost cutting or a desire to make revenue over safety.

[The Old Fogducker]

Widow:

Having listened to the audio trak, I think you did a pretty good job at getting your points across. Experience and some organizing of your talking points will smooth things out.

While Rutherford is is a hardball interviewer, I don't think he went after you.

Here's an example of an interviewer from hell ... a parody of Keith Olbermann. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARaPSqqSmFE

The Old Fogducker

[Dash-Ate]

A hostile right wing nutjob in Alberta? Say it ain't so.

[Widow]

I was wondering how you were going to finish your sentence said at 09:15 "instead of dealing with the problem they simply..."

If I remember correctly the rest of the sentence was "they simply ... say it isn't a priority".

At 10:00 you stated "...more often than not, money will override safety" and used an example of an accident that the average person might not be familiar with. I'm just curious because I don't know which accident you were referring to specifically. How did money override safety in the example? Has it been determined that decisions by management? to reduce cost (associated with maintenance or inspections or supervision or training?) were directly responsible for the accident you mentioned?

I didn't actually refer to an accident. He responded by saying he couldn't believe that a company wouldn't fix a bolt or would allow fatigue to happen because of costs, and I referred to the situation at Southwest Airlines in the US. I should have followed up by explaining they were fined millions of dollars for basically doing just what he couldn't believe would happen. Examples of Canadian compainies who have had their licenses suspended or been the subject of fines would also have furthered my argument - especially as those findings were generally the result of traditional oversight which no longer exists.

I think we all recognize, here, that costs weigh more heavily on small operators (e.g. 703/704) and that they are hardest hit by the need to further cut costs in economically hard times such as today's. I agree hat this is what needs to be focused on.