Valleywag
The latest tech squabble, between Wired and two blog-savvy pundits the magazine wanted to interview, is actually quite interesting. Here's the backstory: Fred Vogelstein, the Wired reporter whom Microsoft's public relations agency played so expertly earlier in the year, pinged Jason Calacanis and Dave Winer for interviews. Each, independently, said they'd reply in writing and, when Vogelstein pressed for a phone interview, went public, here and here, on their respective blogs, of course, about how they didn't trust that a phone interview would be accurately reported. For three reasons, the traditional journalistic insistence on phone interviews is misguided.
To be sure, it's quite reasonable for a reporter to want an interview on the phone. The subject may be more spontaneous. They're more likely to say something human, and quotable — and more likely to slip up, which is also quotable. But why should the interview subjects agree to those terms?
First, it's not "cowardly", as one Wired blogger has suggested, to turn down a phone interview; it may simply be wiser for an interviewee to post on a blog, or write an email, so there's a written record of what was said, and the context.
Second, let's not pretend these phone interviews are so spontaneous, and natural. As Fred Vogelstein knows, from the leaked memo about Microsoft's careful strategy in dealing with him, executives are given talking points before confronting a journalist's questions. These in-person or phone interviews, to which Wired and other print media organizations are so wedded, can be just as carefully scripted as an email exchange. In fact, I'd be willing to better that Vogelstein would get richer answers from Calacanis in email or on instant messenger than he would from a Microsoft executive in a one-hour interview.
Third, phone interviews with sought-after sources aren't just scripted; journalists often agree to quote approval. It's a subtle game. Reporter wants an interview. Answer is no. How about a chat, without quotation, or attribution of information? Okay. And, then, at the end of the interview, the reporter asks whether a certain innocuous quote can be put on the record. Compared with the manipulative professionals of public relations, the new blog pundits are a model of straightforwardness.
Anyway, here's a compromise suggestion: do the interview on instant messenger. That's pretty spontaneous. People tend to be more relaxed, and amusing, and forthright, in a communications medium with such instantaneous response. And the exchange is documented, in case there's any misunderstanding, later.
Comments
Well, you are right. Email interviews are very very common in tech and business media now - not even because of inaccuracy but because it's easier for the journalists.
On a side note, does anybody else notice that the noise among this little crew of tech bloggers always seems to be most generated by them? They're their own audience, voice, and haters all rolled up in one.
Well, phone interviews tend to be more relaxed. I used to interview PR executives, and preferred to do it only the phone because it was more human and spontaneous, and less messaging.
Plus, well, in the old days there were fact checkers. I would actually go back to my interviews with the post and email them for corrections / clarifications.
I much prefer email and IM interviews because, as pillsandpez points out, it's easier for me -- just copy and paste. I'd rather fix a few spelling or grammatical errors than have to transcribe.
When I do phone interviews, I record them and archive the recording in case I get accused of misquoting or taking a statement out of context (though, since I live in California, I have to ask before I can hit record).
On a side note, does anybody else notice that the noise among this little crew of tech bloggers always seems to be most generated by them? They're their own audience, voice, and haters all rolled up in one.
This is key, and a similar reason is why Valleywag is a hard sell. It's not that the Valley is less absurd or narcissistic than other Gawker Media targets, it's that circle is too tight. The people who the posts are about are the same people reading them. In my book, this hamstrings the snark -- the point is to laugh at the circle-jerk, not be part of it.
Anyways.
From Vogelstein's blog post (read bottom up):
Great... Let's do phone recording... I can use the mp3 for calacaniscast! :)
Tyler will setup.
J
---------------
Jason@Calacanis.com | 310-456-4900
www.calacanis.com
-----Original Message-----
From: "Vogelstein, Fred"
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:56:08
To:
Subject: Re: wired story
I would rather tape a phone interview and send you a digital file than do email - and I am happy to do it here. I'll even promise to post it. As for whether it's in your interest to talk to me at all, that is up to you. No one talks to me to do me any favors.
Re irony: yep, though by that def. wired itself is an oxymoron and its circ and ad pages are growing.
speaking of the MS brouhaha - the calacanis cast shows that it was pretty much spot on. he does take a fair bit of time to get his point across.
the whole thing is a storm in a teacup though.
My gosh, Winer and Jason have been offended. What's with you insensitive people? Somebody please call a waaaaaaaaaambulance.
The interview is outmoded and needs to be rethought. There’s no better demonstration of this than the recriprocal snipes we’ve been seeing from and around Wired magazine from its attempt to interview people about Michael Arrington. (If you know the tale, skip to the next paragraph.)
It's good news that journalists at the New York Times will no longer participate in the bloated and compromised White House Correspondents Association dinner. Bravo. I await with some curiosity the explanation for what changed in their thinking. So far, there's been nothing.
German Spiegel (arguably Germany's biggest news magazine) does face-to-face interviews where the interviewed party later on gets to edit & agree on the transcript. They consciously don't want to collect "slip ups". I was surprised when I first heard this...
Howard Kurtz's May 21st column in the Washington Post was entitled Interviews, Going the Way of the Linotype? "It is a transaction that clearly favors the person asking the questions," he says. (Which is true.)
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?