Follow LA Observed on Twitter here
This is an inside baseball kind of post for the journalists and writers who come here, and long, so I'll break it up into two sections.
There's a small but disturbing discussion going on at a couple of journalist's blogs that should raise alarms for writers who use email for interviews, thinking -- as I do -- that it's efficient and can ensure greater accuracy than telephone or in-person interviews. The problem is sources who jump the gun and publicize the interview before the journalist who initiated it makes use of it.
Jeff Jarvis, a New York journalist and blogging evangelist at BuzzMachine.com, got it started by posting the interview questions emailed to him by Mark Glaser, columnist for the Online Journalism Review at USC. He acknowledged his motive was not pure:
I hope he won't mind my obnoxiously quoting myself and the fuller reply I gave him (and if he does, well, I'm still pissed at him for not considering me an online pioneer. This week is my ninth anniversary at doing this full-time and my beard is [prematurely] gray.)It wasn't especially honorable to my mind, but it was pretty much no-harm no-foul. When Glaser did indeed object by email, Jarvis blogged about that too. He did clarify that he wouldn't have posted the interview if Glaser had specifically asked it remain confidential. (Disclosure: I've been interviewed via email by Glaser, and I appreciated the chance to think about my answers, and to be as short or as long winded as I wished, at my own pace. It never would have occurred to me to take his questions and use them for my own purposes). Others -- including Matt Welch, whose work I respect -- commented they would have posted it anyway. The discussion drifted off into who really owns an interview (an interesting topic) and who is doing who a favor. It also descended into a bunch of arrogant nonsense amounting to journalists who blog are saving the republic and non-web journalists are scum to be taken down a notch.
Back on topic, OJR contributor J.D. Lasica also weighed in at his site, gently disagreeing with Glaser (whose only comment, I think, has been in private emails that Jarvis reported). Jarvis is open that his general rule is "talk to me, talk to my blog." [My rule of thumb is at the end.]
It's discouraging because email interviews are a great tool that should be encouraged. They are fast, accurate, often convenient for both parties, no transcription needed, no long distance charges. They foster more accurate and improved journalism, and afterward both interviewer and subject have a permanent record they can use for whatever. But there are many legit reasons a journalist might not want the world to know what he's working on weeks or months before a story (or book or "60 Minutes" segment) is completed.
Lazy competitors is number one. Or you might need to conduct initial research under the radar to see if there even is a story, or to get the story, especially an investigative story. A project can also involve considerable expense and time, and put a writer's reputation at stake, so why should it get out half-assed and incomplete? It's akin to publishing a partially written, unedited story, only worse since the questions that a given subject sees may reflect only a small piece of the larger puzzle. The story itself could shift dramatically based on what you learn. Not all stories cycle in hours like on the Web, nor should they. Journalists who take time to research are a good thing, not something to be disparaged.
So writers beware -- know the trustworthiness of your subject before you reveal too much to them in email. I try to be open and forthcoming in email introductions, figuring it's only right since I'll be asking them to reveal themselves. I'll be more guarded and cagier in email now, especially with bloggers -- who seem to be the main,if not the only, adherents to this cause. I'll get a commitment of confidentiality, and if in doubt I'll try to use the phone or go in person, or if it's sensitive I'll try to interview somebody more honorable. So in a way everybody loses.
For the record, my general principle is "you talk to me, not my blog." Some things go on the blog, but this blogger-journalist routinely and happily keeps confidences. Private communication with me is just that -- private. The lines seldom become truly unclear, but when there is confusion I err on the side of privacy.