Reaction to NPR story

The story about the beaver attack on NPR was hilarious, but it also illustrated a very good way to report.  The journalist kept the guy talking about his story by continually asking, "what happened next?" or "how did you get him off?"  These questions were great because they cleared up any parts in the story that were still fuzzy to the reporter but were broad enough to really get the guy going and didn't allow for simply yes or no answers.  Indeed, a lot of his questions weren't really questions at all but helped the man who was attacked to tell his story and remember exactly what happened.  You can see this when the journalist said, "so he was biting you?"  Through this question the journalist was prodding him to make sure that he had the facts right and also to make sure the guy would continue to talk.  Also, when the guy said something funny, the journalist reacted by laughing to illustrate he was actually listening and was interested in what the guy was saying.  These reactions continued throughout the questioning, like for example when he journalist said "ouch" at one point.  He acted just like a friend who actually cared for the well being of this guy.  Also, throughout the rest of the interview he continually asked "how" and "why" questions that facilitated thoughtful and opinionated responses.  This is exactly what we want out of sources.  We don't just want background information in quotations, we want their emotions and thoughts on a subject.