http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=77&aid=189884It's been a long time since I've bothered with reading what Joe Grimm has to say. He was barely relevant when he was still in the industry, and now he's simply trying to maintain a presence.
Today, though, I had to read his "advice" about how to handle trick questions in an interview. As I expected, a couple of his answers are quick indications he really has no idea what he is talking about:
Where would you like to be in five years?
Obviously, your answer should have you still with this company, but in a bigger job. Most people want to hire people with aspirations that will motivate them. But they do not want to hire good people who will leave. So, describe a job bigger than the current opening and the path you will take to get to it. This is a time to describe your idealism, passion and plans for this field.In some fields, this might be a decent idea. In journalism, though, you would be expressing your intention to have the job of one of the people interviewing you. I am not sure that is a great idea.
Grimm should know this. After all, he is writing a column for journalists.
You wouldn't like (fill in the blank), I bet.
This is a misdirectional question. By encouraging you to agree with the statement, the interviewer is trying to expose a weakness. Disagree. Say, "Oh, no, I think I would like to do that. It actually sounds interesting to me." Taking a contrary position on this trap question can help your chances -- especially if you can back it up with an example from your career.I don't recall ever being "asked" this. But unless the (fill in the blank) part really is interesting, why would you say it is? The idea is to explain your strengths and how they would help that paper. Pretending to be interested in or skilled in areas where you are not is the real trap here.
I will clarify this with an example. During one interview, after it had been established I was more interested in editing than in designing, a very lengthy Q&A about the importance of design followed. This was a significant red flag, but there were other positive aspects (some misstated) that led me to believe I should try to navigate that mine field. I got the job, but the paper's interests were significantly different from the ones I wanted to pursue. Eventually it was time to move on.
What are your three weaknesses?
This is lazy interviewing. Many people try to position strengths like, "I am a perfectionist," as weaknesses. This does not fool anyone. Admit real weaknesses to show you're honest and confident. But make them skill gaps that you are already working to close. "I need to be better at editing video," is better than pointing out character deficits: "I am not a visual person." The latter cannot easily be corrected.Again, I do not recall being asked this. Sometimes the question was to name a weakness, and a good interviewer would ask for an explanation of how it could be addressed.
Grimm actually does fairly well here, until the last two sentences. His example about editing video smacks of someone who is old, tired, and irrelevant but still desperately trying to sound hip. Also, I would not recommend saying: "I am not a visual person," mainly because that would be a giant red flag for all design-obsessed newspapers, many of which also feature someone old, tired, and irrelevant who is desperately trying to sound hip. But I would hardly consider that a "character deficit." Believe it or not, there are writers and editors who are not "visual" people. But that should not make them people to avoid, unless a newspaper has long given up on the concept of good writing. (And many of them have.) There are even writers who are not good writers, but they are good enough reporters to keep around.
(Unfortunately, there are far too many bad writers who are not good reporters, either, and newspapers also keep them around.)
