Interviewing dictators (and the like) is always a dilemma: to what extent are we providing a platform for their anti-democratic ideas and repressive regimes? But, despite everything, there is room for good interviews, especially thanks to the kryptonite of ego: if the leader succumbs to it, in search of validation, there can be room for a good journalistic exchange. One example is the interview Jorge Ramos, from Univisión, conducted with Nicolás Maduro. There was no way to get out of the trivialities that humanize autocrats until the presenter presented him with an iPad showing him images of starving Venezuelans eating from dumpsters. Maduro stood up, declared the interview over, and had the journalist and his team arrested, in addition to confiscating the images. Of course, a few months later they ended up appearing: someone from the Venezuelan government environment leaked them. Needless to say, Maduro has since only agreed to be interviewed by journalists he considered allies.
And he's not the only one. As I commented in yesterday's article, the trend is that dictators don't want to take risks and now have more avenues to secure their shot: podcasts (especially those that do not adhere to journalistic principles) and social media, with which they can reach the population without the hassle of someone posing uncomfortable questions or asking incisive follow-ups when they go off on a tangent. That Putin agreed to be interviewed only by Tucker Carlson – who tends to speak of him in positive terms – was an easy-to-understand move, as predictable as the outcome: an unwatchable conversation, more like a long monologue barely interrupted by friendly questions. Therefore, we must try to interview dictators, of course, but by doing journalism and ensuring a fair playing field. Otherwise, they end up interviewing themselves. Or coming to have fun on El hormiguero, to put it simply.
