Using face to face interviews as a way of investigating crime by the media is useful in that the reporter can use the interview as a primary source which has taken active participation in an event. The information would be considered both valid and reliable as it is testimony. Also, a face to face interview lurks inside the body language of the interviewee and helps the reporter and the audience make their own conclusions.
The problem with the face to face is also precisely the chemistry between the reporter and the interviewee.If the reporter is biased, and the interviewee is defensive, a very bad situation can occur and the information will not flow freely. Another problem is the validity of the testimony-a reporter cannot ascertain whether the interviewee is exagerating, or plain lying. Perhaps a person can tell a story better without the pressure of a face to face interview, or in writing, so that no individual characteristics or personality conflicts ruins the information.
The paragraph for strengths of this technique could talk about being able to ask questions where direct answers are needed. The ability to be able to ask interviews of those directly involved or associated with crimes could reveal much in way of unique and distinct answers. I think that this technique could reveal much in way of information and detail. In this paragraph, being able to detail specific examples of this would be helpful, of moments where the media was able to ask pointed and directed questions with illuminating answers being the result. In the next paragraph on "weaknesses," I think that some analysis has to be present on how some might use the interview process to be not as forthcoming. We have seen numerous examples of individuals with knowledge of criminal activity using the media to perpetuate their story of deceit and not be entirely forthcoming. At the same time, some who are charismatic and dynamic enough could use such an opportunity to manipulate the circumstances to their control.