Unless you're a hard-boiled reporter, most of us freelancers are not used to handling interview subjects who turn nasty. Sometimes they don't like the questions being asked, sometimes they never wanted to be interviewed in the first place. How do you avoid taking somebody else's bad day personally and attempt to get what you came for in the first place? I asked some of the writers on the AW forum for their thoughts:

"This has happened to me (very infrequently, though) in both radio and article interviews," says Michael Riley. "One thing that works well in any interview situation is to spend a little time at the beginning and just talk a little. Get to know each other for a moment or two. People respond better when they know that you're a human being with an easy-going approach, as opposed to an interviewer who comes across too abruptly ("just the facts, ma'am").

It also helps to reassure the interviewee that she or he will be represented in a positive and accurate light. People have been burned by writers -- those who have are often reluctant to open up again. Tell the interviewee what the article is about, who will read it, and your reasons for contacting him or her specifically. This frames the discussion and puts the interviewee at ease (usually).

Once in a while you'll run across someone who needs to be rude, controlling, or ridiculously aggressive. I always try to have backups in case I run across someone like this; unless it's a profile, an assignment shouldn't hinge on one person. If I've done my best to establish rapport and the interviewee's still a jerk, I'll offer to reschedule the interview: "If this is a bad time, maybe we can set up something else later. Do you still want to go through with this?"

If they continue to escalate, I thank them for their time and move on as gracefully as I can.

Once during a radio interview with a book author, the interviewee was so rude that I had to shut off my microphone and breathe out my frustration as she went on, and on, and on with her aggression and controlling behavior. Considering that she was an "expert" in her field (personal development), I decided that it would be best to allow her to carry on and demonstrate for the listeners who she really was. All I had to do was get out of her way ... and then thank her for her time without carrying her guest slot forward into another segment. The show went on without her and we had the opportunity to present some of our backup material ... which turned out to be a nice bonus that wouldn't have happened if she'd been allowed to fill up the entire hour.

I'd never recommend going head-to-head with a hostile interviewee. Offer to focus on the topic positively. If that doesn't work, then gracefully move on."

"Press junkets for films can make some celebrities cranky," said one writer. "If your job is to interview them, and theirs is to promote the movie, then you both have to be there. When that happens, I usually try humor. I find the best tool in dealing with a potentially difficult interview is preparation. The more you know about your subject and their skills and interests, the easier it is for you to change subject or toss out an ice-breaker if things start off poorly."

Denise Hahne wrote, "A few tips for the hostile interviewee based on my 11+ years working as a paralegal and interviewing many persons who didn't "want" to be interviewed.

- Keep your cool, even if the interviewee doesn't.

- Focus on making the interviewee comfortable - and let them know you need their help. As a general rule, people like helping people. .

- Know what you want to ask - have an outline or list of questions ready. .

- Let them know you aren't attacking them or planning to use their words maliciously (unless, of course, as noted above, you are doing an investigative piece).

- Work the interview into the interviewee's schedule, not so much your own.

- Thank the interviewee for their time and assistance .

- Always get a short "interview release" signed - or at least confirmed via e-mail. CYA, ya' know. [editor's note: this might not be necessary for general article interviews but having a record of the interviewee's willingness to talk, if you have one, can't ever be bad.]

- If the interviewee refuses to be interviewed, there isn't much you can do. Unless you feel it would be a situation where you could say, "Well, thanks for your time, I just wanted to include your POV as well in this story. For now, I'll quote you as being unavailable or unwilling to share your position." Maybe that would spur them on... Not sure if that would be as effective in the writing world (to date, I've had no hostile interviewees in writing)."

"During the time I was an investigative reporter, I'd run into a number of people who did not want to be approached. That is each person's prerogative. I have had people refuse to make a comment on the subject at hand. When writing the piece I simply stated Mr. X refused to comment"Joanne D. Kiggins says, "During the time I was an investigative reporter, I'd run into a number of people who did not want to be approached. That is each person's prerogative. I have had people refuse to make a comment on the subject at hand. When writing the piece I simply stated Mr. X refused to comment.

There have been a few times when the person I've interviewed may have been very opinionated on the subject but the emotions shown or words spoken were concerning the issue. These times were mostly in the political realm where tempers tend to flare anyway. A writer or reporter may or may not know what question might anger someone. The concept of interviewing someone for his or her opinion is to ask questions related to the subject at hand, but ask them with respect and with the goal of obtaining that person's opinion; not with the intent to incite the anger.

When asking a question, cold-without an interview scheduled or during a scheduled interview, a writer is responsible for asking questions with a degree of respect. If you are aware that you will be asking questions that have previously opened the wounds of someone, don't begin by pouring salt in those wounds. Let the person know up front that you're aware that the subject is a bone of contention with him or her, and that some of your questions may be annoying. Reinforce that you are a professional and you are not there to judge or criticize; you simply want to include his or her opinions on the subject in an unbiased report.

If you've followed all of the above and the person chooses to cancel the interview there is really nothing you can do but thank him or her for the time and go on to the next source.

There should be no reason for a writer or reporter to become defensive or need to defend himself. In my opinion, if the writer is feeling that defense is needed, he may be interjecting too many of your own views on the subject. That is not what an interview, investigative or otherwise, is about. It is up to a writer or reporter to remain unbiased. (Hostility toward the writer or reporter could simply mean the person has been burned by a previous reporter and simply doesn't like the media.) If this is the case, follow the steps mentioned above.

That's what makes a great interview; being capable of reporting both sides of an issue (if there is an issue) and keeping your opinions to yourself.

If you know in advance that you will be dealing with a person who easily becomes irritated, or who is well known for being hostile, and you have no choice but to include his or her opinion, my suggestion would be to structure your questions very carefully. If there is a choice, mine would be to pass to the next source and avoid the aggravation."

Writer Serenity Banks added that some writers just get nasty right back to a nasty interviewee: "Although I personally wouldn't suggest it, a senior staff writer at the newspaper I used to work for had a fail-proof method of getting responses from difficult interviewees.

Her words: 'It's up to you if you don't want to respond, but based on what everyone else has said, you're going to look really stupid if you don't.'"

Of course, this might be more effective for an investigative piece, rather than a quote round-up on rhinestone dog collars.