But do you do the questions?
DO: As I said earlier, I try to be the guest to set the tone of the conversation. The protagonist of the interview is always invited and everything has to be marked by him. I take a lot of questions, but he should be leading the conversation, because the issue is delicate, like someone who had just lost its sister to cancer of the pancreas, asking things can be very delicate. I took the knowledge with me of course; I tried however, that he would set the tone of the conversation.
There was a guest you interview that intimidated because he was someone who you admire and that you feel nervous or conditioned?
DO: Not particularly. There are interviews that are more delicate, Miguel Sousa Tavares for being someone who mastered both the art of the interview, is so rare that he accepts to be interview for a television program. Maybe I was more apprehensive, perhaps that is the word about how the interview would take place. I had to be well prepared in order to pursue other paths to follow the guest knowing he mastered the technique and knowing what he wants to say, so I never felt nervous or conditioning.
In others, was there some interview where you felt more at ease and it was an enriching experience?
DO: It's not easy, because there is a purpose that is all goes well in a interview of 40 minutes, I cannot be ease with a guest that mine the central concept of all that is to do a good interview and a good program television. I try to be prepared for a person I know and I do not know, but for example Fernando Mendes interview was hilarious, because it's someone I know who has a funny way of looking at things, but did not feel it was more comfortable.
When you choose your personalities for interviews what motivates your choice? It's their career, or their personal life? What fascinates you in these guests?
DO: The criterion is based on merit, the professional and personal side. It has not to do with age necessarily. It has more to do with the talent that we recognized in that person, a set of characteristics and values that legitimizes the interview. The second has to do with temporality, the time in which we live, that is, an artist who is releasing an album is more likely to be interviewed at that time than six months before, when we invited him. There are interviews that occur within a certain time, because that is the will of both parties. Cristiano Ronaldo interview is important at any time, but on the eve of Portuguese national team plays in Europe to the media that has a much greater significance.
Let's talk a little about the publication, you chose to turn the interviews into a book instead of DVD to avoid the title of being "lame"?
DO: I think they are different issues. Let's address them. The DVD market is the most downloaded in Portugal as a whole. People have all the interviews that were made in "high definition" in the SIC site, in you tube, or in recordings of boxes where they see these interviews. In this sense, the word has a different weight; the ideas are matured in a different way when they are being read. People can be in the silence of your room to read these interviews, to reread and return to them instantly. The way we do it in our imagination we looked at these sentences and the way they touch us is different than to be watching on a TV show where we have someone on our side, or we needed to go to the kitchen and happens a lot of things that do not apprehend. There is a greater intimacy between a book and a person, than the spectator and television, always. Regarding the term "lame" I refuse it altogether. The "HD" had 160 programs, is easily demonstrable that in 80% of interviews people did not cry. Just go see. What happens in the programs is that people are touched, are so striking, impressive and rare for the public that turn out to be the ones to prevail in the minds of people. What I want is always a good conversation and a good television program. If I invite Nuno Markl, or Fernando Alvim is not for the purpose they cry, the aim is to get a good conversation. Turns out we all define ourselves more by how decoded, apprehend and talked about the divisive moments in our lives than in those all went well. We live always in overcoming. People invoking these moments, may have a more unbridled emotion, but I would say more, some of the interviews of "high definition" none people wept, António Feio, Arthur Agostinho, Nicolau Breyner, Manuela Moura Guedes, etc.. Incidentally, there have been moments in the program entertaining. I can live okay with that.
It is just one facet of the program?
DO: There is a view that some people have about the program and that is not in fact the reality.
Let's talk a little of your career, from the 13 years of age you had a file, you knew you wanted to be a journalist?
DO: No, it was a desire to communicate and it was mainly the simplest way I've found of that happening. I did not thought about doing anything when I wrote a newspaper. Just a daydream was a kid of 13 who wanted to make things happen.
In your childhood you wanted to be a writer?
DO: No, football player. As I think most children want to be that at thirteen, but after the taste for completing projects started to sharpen up I decided to pursue this area.
What gives you more pleasure in professional terms to be producer or interviewer?
DO: Both cannot distinguish the two areas. Whenever I stay in both. I'm always creating projects, putting ideas into practice, motivate teams in this sense are not separable. I could never do interviews only in "high definition", I need to have control over the final product, it is crucial how the program reaches the public and I like to do both.
As a journalist, how you see journalism with the disappearance of newsrooms, diminishing the space for information, also time as an interviewer?
DO: I'm not a journalist, I think we live in a time that is citizen-journalists, i.e., nowadays anyone with a mobile phone can capture images of a disaster, a fire and to communicate this automatically. This is fierce competition and irreversible in relationship how journalists communicate ten years ago. In the Anglo-Saxon market this aspect is very active in terms of participation. I think the same values prevail, is of extreme importance how the journalist can filter the information, there is too much to be processed, the communications professional has that role and it requires experience, with news rooms that are not too young to know what is not essential and what is important to communicate to the public at this time. We often have a global view of things, but for all of us often is most important hole in our street than the bus that overturned in the republic of Bhutan. That distinction between what is essential and accessory must be present in the news and should be done by journalists. Their role will continue to be relevant even for democracy and it matters, I think, not to distort the concept of journalism and especially not depart experienced professionals of a news room with a memory of the political and economic world of one of a young group who is more malleable. Someone who has already received hundreds of politicians know better deal in a concrete way with them, knows decode the intent of these calls, of someone younger than that can be tricked.
The television in that aspect suffers the pressure of not being able to discuss the themes, there is a time limit.
DO: I think there's room for all themes, there is the big story and investigative journalism. Television parallel suffers more competition from the internet, facebook, than for example the newspapers. I think there must be an upgrading of criteria of each mean, when a newspaper comes out in the morning is out of date, because all that information is on websites, has gone out the night before, unless it is an exclusive of the newspaper itself, i.e. already has no news, the facts happen the day before, which are not new to the reader.
