Link: Jarvis on the obsoletion of the interview
Jesus. Where was this when I was looking for it a few months ago? What an outstanding post, and one that I’ve tried to follow after hearing about the actions of those featured in it. As someone who has often sought information that a reporter might use an interview to obtain, I respect fully the idea that talking is overrated. Just freaking send it to me, and it would be great if you also posted it on your own blog, too. Assuming you have one, which is far too infrequent.
Comments
Thank you for sharing this. It has some great ideas.
I have one concern, although I’m not sure it’s relevant. We communicate in many more ways than words. An e-mail interview just has words. A phone interview has words, voice inflection, accent, laughter, sighs, etc. A video interview has all of that plus nodding, head shaking, smirks, winks, background distractions, etc. (Sorry, the Sarah Palin interview in front of the turkey butchering keeps popping into my mind.) I guess none of this becomes a problem unless you rely on a transcript of a phone interview or TV interview—if you do that, it’s way too easy to quote out of context. Although, in the case of Palin’s pre-Thanksgiving interview, you’d get a more accurate meaning of her comments by reading a transcript than by watching her make them.
You are right. I think there are a couple of things to add to it, too. First, the vast majority of a reporters information gathering takes place in interviews where voice inflection, body language, etc. aren’t an issue. It’s gathering of information. And it’s for print. You can’t communicate any of that stuff in print, and I doubt I’ve seen enough of a reporter talking about it in print to have it make a difference. So getting the information, in full context (what question was asked, what preceded and followed the line used), is huge. I have been interviewed at least three times for stories running in local print publications, and all three felt like what I sai was incomplete in relation to my thoughts. One of the interviews was done through email, so I had the full transcript. Not surprisingly, that was also the article where I felt like where I was quoted was closest to what I said and meant.
Secondly, there will always be a place for video and audio interviews. In cases like you mentioned, the interviews are with people who we ant to see on camera and hear speak. But they are the rarities.
I think the ultimate takeaway point is that reporters were/are used to being the ones who set the rules, except in cases of very powerful people who “grant” interviews. But when someone like me gets a call, I basically have to do it how they want to do it. I have to weigh my options: I can stick to principle, or I can get in the paper talking about something that might help me in some way. But times are changing. As papers lose readership and online avenues gain them, I’m getting closer to not needing the paper to get a message out. Why risk my quotes being taken out of context when I can just as easily say exactly what I want right here. The reporter’s job is to find the information. I’ll put it up, and if they’re serious about getting the story right, they should have no problem with that.
Commenting is closed for this article.