Anda Mbikwana
In contemporary political discourse, the role of journalism is to serve as a watchdog, challenging authority and probing public figures to ensure transparency and accountability.
However, a troubling trend in media has emerged in the form of the “softball interview” or “puff piece,” where interviewers avoid follow-up questions, and conversations are carefully curated to present guests in a favourable light.
These interviews, often staged to convey a specific narrative, compromise journalism’s integrity, leaving audiences deprived of crucial insights into the motivations and actions of political leaders.
A lack of depth characterises a softball interview. Here, the interviewer refrains from pressing further on contentious or ambiguous answers, bypassing any critical inquiry that may cast the interviewee in a less favourable light.
This approach may appeal to viewers seeking digestible sound bites rather than complex political discussions; however, it undermines the public’s ability to understand nuanced issues.
These interviews often emerge in highly polarised environments where maintaining access to political elites and preserving media partnerships takes precedence over holding leaders to account.
The impacts of these staged interviews on democratic discourse are substantial. By avoiding challenging questions, these interviews can shape public perception in a controlled, one-sided manner, promoting only the guest’s chosen narrative.
This selective messaging reinforces echo chambers, where audiences are fed a steady stream of uncritical, flattering portrayals of political figures and ideologies.
Furthermore, in coalition governments or scenarios where power dynamics are fluid and multi-party negotiations are common, such interviews obscure the true state of governance.
By avoiding scrutiny, they prevent the public from understanding the complexities or conflicts within governing bodies, leading to an erosion of accountability.
Moreover, the “puff piece” interview reflects a shift from investigative journalism to access journalism, where the priority is to maintain favourable relationships with influential figures rather than critically analyse their statements and policies.
Such interviews dilute journalists’ role as the “fourth estate”, undermining their duty to act independently and challenge power. They also cultivate a culture of media compliance rather than critique, in which challenging questions are replaced by rehearsed scripts, minimising the potential for public figures to be held accountable.
In an era where misinformation and half-truths proliferate, the consequences of soft journalism are particularly severe. When media entities neglect rigorous questioning, they abdicate their responsibility to the public, creating space for manipulated narratives to thrive unchallenged.
By failing to pursue genuine inquiry, these staged interviews contribute to a crisis of public trust in media institutions, as audiences become increasingly sceptical of the reliability and independence of news sources.
Ultimately, combating the prevalence of staged interviews demands a renewed commitment to journalistic principles. Media organisations must resist the allure of access over accountability and return to their role as arbiters of truth.
Equally important is a media-literate public, one that recognises and critiques softball interviews, holding journalists to higher standards. By demanding transparency and challenging narratives that prioritise political image over public interest, society can reassert the power of investigative journalism as a tool for democracy and accountability.
Anda Mbikwana is a PhD candidate and a municipal finance and leadership in governance expect, he writes in his personal capacity.