Discover the ex-editor-in-chief of the famous "Time Magazine", who has shared his experience from the interview he did with the Soviet leader back in 1989...
Recently, Champittet has held a conference, the theme of which was ethics in journalism. This is a very important topic, especially today, in the digitalised 21st Century, when billions of units of information affect us every second.
We have had the chance to interview the two journalists (main guests of the conference), at the end of their presentations. In this article, read the very sincere interview to Mr Henri Muller, a former editor of "Time Magazine".
VK: Good afternoon Mr Muller! Thank you for being with us today!
Good afternoon!
VK: «Time Magazine» is one of the most popular and prestigious newspapers in the world. How did you get to work there?
Well, I was very lucky. I had been working for the student newspaper in my high school, so, I was already interested in journalism for fun back then, not knowing that it was going to be my profession. Then, when I went to University, at Stanford, there was also a newspaper there, for which I worked. I became editor of the student newspaper at Stanford. One day, I got a telephone call from someone in New York, at «Time Magazine», offering me a summer internship. I hadn’t really thought of doing that but I accepted, and to make a long story short, I’ve had a great time. This was when I decided that journalism for me was not just fun, but could be my career.
VK: Each year, your newspaper chooses and publishes «the person of the year». How is this person selected? What sort of criteria do you use?
The criterion is such that it is always the person who has had the most influence on the news in a particular year. This is sometimes misunderstood: people often think that being «a person of the year» is a kind of honour, that it means you’re the best person in the world, and that you’re being honoured for good things. This might be the case. For example, about 10 years ago, Bill Gates was honoured «person of the year» because of his philanthropy. But Hitler was also «man of the year», so was Stalin. Each of them was chosen because they had incredible influence on the news during a particular year. We always say the person of the year is the person who has had the most influence for better or worse in the news.
VK: Have you ever participated in writing such articles? I’m talking about the period 1987-1993, when you were the editor-in-chief.
I have never written these articles, but when I was an editor, I was lucky enough to make the decision of who it was. 2 out of 6 times in my career there, the person was Mikhail Gorbachev.
MA: Is there any particular method of choosing this person, estimating his/her influence on the news?
The process of choosing the person of the year is «semi-democratic». We ask everyone in the staff, and also the readers, to make recommendations. We thus get a lot of ideas, but it is to the editor to make the choice.
MA: Have you ever experienced difficulties making this choice?
Usually, I shouldn’t say that it’s easy (it shouldn’t seem that it’s a decision made lightly), but the process that I’ve described takes a period of weeks. During that process, so much information is brought together, so many arguments are made in favour of different solutions, that by the time you need to make the choice, you consider yourself as well-informed.
MA: I will continue with a different topic. Many news outlets have recently been criticised by Donald Trump, particularly in the US and including “Time Magazine”. How would you interpret this? Are there, in your opinion, any valuable reasons for this criticism? How can you respond to it?
I think that the press isn’t perfect and makes mistakes. There are always reasons to criticise the press, and it’s healthy to sometimes have a debate about the press and how it works, as well as what influence it has on the society, whether it’s American, European or other. Having said that, I think, however, that Donald Trump’s attacks on the press are completely over-the-top. They reveal a complete misunderstanding of the press’ role in a democracy. The criticism that he makes is almost never rooted in a serious discussion of what the press might do wrong, but it has everything to do with himself, and what the press writes about him - not the way the press does its job or how it could do its job better. I mean, if Trump had his way, there would be no press or only the press that spends all its time praising him. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the importance of the press in any free society.
VK: You said that nowadays the press is not perfect. How would you yourself criticise modern-day Western media?
Everybody makes mistakes, the press makes mistakes… A good news organisation would admit its mistakes, investigate, and correct these mistakes. I think, the flaws in the media now are such that some media make no effort to have journalistic standards. I’m thinking, for example, of «Fox News» (a pro-republican newsorganisation in the US), which is just a «propaganda machine» for Trump. They don’t even pretend to perform journalism up to generally respected standards of this profession. So, that’s a huge problem. I think that another huge problem in journalism now is that it has economic difficulties caused by the arrival of the internet: much of the traditional mainstream press is earning less money and is obliged to make «cut-backs». These problems lead to the cutting of corners and the sloppiness that is very detrimental to the reputation of the profession.
MA: Does this explain the «fake news» phenomenon, in your opinion?
No, I think the «fake news» phenomenon is a product of what technology allows. 15-20 years ago, it was impossible to produce and disseminate so much wrong information so widely and so quickly. I think it is a technological phenomenon. I’m not saying that during human history there haven’t been people who lied or who tried to deceive others. I think the shrinking amount of resources of the mainstream press make it more difficult to combat «fake news».
MA: What are the «must-have» qualities of a professional journalist?
Curiosity, honesty and eagerness to listen to different points of view, and real pleasure in sharing what you’ve learned with a wider audience.
VK: Your colleagues from «Stanford Magazine» named you «the exec who downsized himself». Do you agree with their statement? What made you leave «Time»?
[laughs]
I’ve spent 30 happy years there and I decided to leave when I felt that I’ve learned everything I possibly can in that series of jobs for that magazine. I didn’t want to hang on forever. Once it became a routine and unchallenging to stay.
VK: Was it a personal reason, in this case?
Well, it was personal, but it was also related to the profession where I have learned and achieved everything I could. Hanging on and doing the same just didn’t seem very interesting, so I decided to move on and try a different life.
MA: So you were at your professional summit?
I got almost to the professional summit of «Time» organisation with one step higher that I decided not to make. But that’s alright: I was never motivated at that time just by climbing corporate steps. I was motivated because I love journalism, I love being a reporter and a writer and an editor, as much as I later loved being the editor of the magazine. I was lucky to become the editor, but I wouldn’t have been unhappy if I hadn’t become editor. I loved all the other things I did. I was curious, I learned so much and I enjoyed sharing it, learning things, organising them, and communicating them so that they could reach lots of people.
MA: Just before we finish: is there any particular experience from your career in journalism which stays in your mind and which you would maybe like to share (positive or negative)?
I have lots of positive memories. I think, probably, that the higher point of my entire career was my interview with Mr Mikhail Gorbachev in his office in the Kremlin, in the Red Square around 1989, at a time when the World was changing…
VK: How did you find him as a person?
I found him fascinating! He was friendly and interesting and pleasant to be around. But the most important thing is that I was witnessing a tipping point in 20th Century History, however pretentious it could sound. I was born after WW2 and I grew up in Europe and in America, in a World that seemed divided forever: Western Europe and Russia (Soviet Union) and the Eastern block. This division seemed so permanent that I thought it would last my entire lifetime. It was kind of scary because there were nuclear weapons on both sides, and moments such as the Cuban crisis, when it really seemed like the World was on edge because of this tension between these two superpowers. And here, all of a sudden, I found myself one of the first people to understand that this world I’d grown up in was going to change and that people on both sides of what was then «the Iron Curtain» could look forward to a life which wasn’t completely defined by this sort of rivalry.
VK: Do you think that Mr Gorbachev was also understanding this at that point?
MA: Did he have the same idea in mind as you?
I think so… I think, he knew he was changing history.
MA: Did it take a long time to schedule this interview? During the Soviet era, it was nearly impossible to interview the leader of the country.
It took months… usually it was impossible. I mean, we would, as a news organisation, have to ask. The fact that he agreed to do this was already symbolic. This was an indicator of the fact that things would change. Why would he talk to an American news magazine unless he had an important message? He didn’t do this because he was a nice guy. He really had something he wanted the rest of the World, and, especially, the American world, to understand.
MA: How do you see journalism in the future? Taking into account the current development, will it be a totally different format?
It’s hard to say. Right now, journalism is in difficulty - economic, first of all. Internet has had a lot of influence, positive and negative. I tend to be optimistic. Although, I can’t tell you how things are going to change. I think, after a period of disruption of the internet, things will settle down, and, at some point, a new equilibrium will be in place, which will allow journalism to continue.
MA: Thank you very much for sharing this experience with us!
Thank you for your good questions!