Poll: The value of MOS (man-on-the-street) interviews

[Enhance]

I was going to put this in a status update, but figured it might dive too deeply into specific politics, so this is probably the better home.

 

Some people I know have to report on the Trump visit in Iowa this week, and some of them have been relegated to doing 'MOS' interviews as part of the content gathering. (Quick definition for those who don't know - a 'man on the street' interview, particularly in the TV world, is when a reporter randomly asks strangers to interview about a specific topic). So, for instance, some reporters will be tasked with asking random Trump supporters what they think of him being here, why they're supporting him, what hot button issues they're hoping to hear him speak about, etc., etc. I'm sure you've seen these types of things before. They will likely also be responsible for finding random people who want to protest/speak out against Trump.

 

Do you, as a viewer/listener/reader, find these types of interviews valuable? And, as a related topic, do you enjoy when people call into radio talk shows (sports or politics) and share their opinions?

 

I, personally, can't stand them. I feel it's rare someone will actually say something valuable or interesting. But, perhaps my opinion is less popular than I think.

[knapplc]

When half the people on the street exist in the lower half of the intelligence bracket, and you're just randomly picking those people off a sidewalk, you're bound to get a lot of really bad opinions on things. What's the point of that?

[Landlord]

I find them entertaining when they reinforce my ideas and I find them manipulative when they attack my ideas.

[RedDenver]

I find them interesting when it's a long interview with some back and forth, like the ones where the voters in the studio and get time of talk about their opinions. If it's just a quick sampling of people as the reporter walks by, then it's not worth it. And I hate listening to callers.

[NM11046]

Reminded me of this that was just on recently.  New Yorkers man on the street for Fox & Friends is the best:

 

 

[TGHusker]

Most of the time I am saying to myself  "Under what rock did this person just crawl out from under?"   Unfortunately, most Americans are politically and historically illiterate.  I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, moderate, if you are a voting citizen inform yourself.  If you aren't informed, don't vote PLEASE.  Don't be a lazy citizen.  It scares me to think of all of the illiterate voters out there and it often shows up on these MOS interviews or comedy routines that do the same.  By illiterate - I'm not calling people dumb but I mean they haven't studied their history or taken the time to understand politics and they vote with the crowd or flavor of the month - thus we get a Trump as president.    I end up yelling at the TV(ok, my wife thinks I'm yelling - I'm just verbally saying this: ) when I hear nonsense spoken. 

 

Thus I appreciate the conversations on HB - we come from all different stripes, have different filters and opinions but normally I see educated responses for the most part (even if they are wrong because they disagree wt my point of view - just kidding).  I'd rather hear an opposing view that challenges me to think harder than a complimentary view that reinforces my own filters and biases.  Not saying the opposing view is right, but it keeps me from being smug and arrogant and keeps me open to see a new perspective and open to new ideas. 

[Danny Bateman]

No and no for me. Usually find them pretty insufferable. I suppose in a way they're interesting as an example of how little a lot of Americans actually know about politics.

 

They're useless as a way of gauging public support for people or policies because it's hard to have a non-biased sample of people outside a political event or calling into a specific show.

 

Polling is still king for learning more about public support.

[Enhance]

See, this is all pretty interesting, and fairly in line with my perspective on it. Local TV stations put a particularly heavy reliance on it. Some MOS stories can be interesting (i.e. if a major construction project is going to impact something negatively) but just asking randos to share their political opinions is... stupid. Like @knapplc said, chances are you're going to rope yourself in to unintelligent rabble.

 

It drives me particularly irate on sports talk shows, including local ones, and it's part of the reason I don't listen to them much anymore. 1620 the Zone's pandering to 'Nebrasketball Mike' (and a bunch of other regulars they shove to the front of the call line in ALL their shows) forces me to just change the station. And then when the host gets into petty fights with the person (like Bahe used to do all the time, not sure if he still does) it's just like... why am I even listening to this nonsense?

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

It drives me particularly irate on sports talk shows, including local ones, and it's part of the reason I don't listen to them much anymore. 1620 the Zone's pandering to 'Nebrasketball Mike' (and a bunch of other regulars they shove to the front of the call line in ALL their shows) forces me to just change the station. And then when the host gets into petty fights with the person (like Bahe used to do all the time, not sure if he still does) it's just like... why am I even listening to this nonsense? 

 

This is... way too accurate.

 

Boy Unsportsmanlike Conduct has gone downhill from back in the day. Kind of illustrates how low the standards for sports radio are locally, IMO.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Boy Unsportsmanlike Conduct has gone downhill from back in the day. Kind of illustrates how low the standards for sports radio are locally, IMO.

Very much so. Their content decision making, alongside the callers they pander to, has basically shut me off from them. The second I hear 'Nebrasketball Mike' or 'Joe in Phoneix' I turn off the station. I'll often tune in for segments with Sipple or Nate Clouse but that's about it these days.