Reinventing the Media Interview

The media interview seems like a pretty cut and dry experience. Reporter calls source. Reporter interviews source. Reporter uses portions of the interview in a piece and a lot more as background. Those of us who have been in PR a long time or have been interviewed by the press frequently know the drill. However, the media interview as we know it though is going through a radical transformation and it's starting not with the reporters but with bloggers.

Exhibit A: Mark Cuban. Mark doesn't do media interviews by phone anymore (if he ever did). He only does them by email so he has a complete record of the conversation and can correct misgivings on his blog. In this situation, Mark (the source) publishes the full text of a specific media interview to give everyone a panoramic view of the reporter and source's perspectives.

Exhibit B: Dave Winer. Dave, who invented blogging and RSS, takes a more subtle approach. He describes today how he answers interview questions on his blog without saying who the reporter is and exactly what questions were asked. He "create(s) a public record, something that can be useful to anyone." Part of his rationale, like Cuban's, is to avoid being quoted selectively and out of context.

This is just the beginning. There's a lot of room to innovate here. So many of the good quotes, anecdotes and news nuggets never see the light of day because they're left on the cutting room floor. Given that a lot of reporters have blogs, I am wondering if we can begin to open this entire process up.

For instance, what if reporters posted their questions out in the 'sphere and allowed prospective sources to respond either in comments or by linking to/trackbacking the post. This would give the reporter potentially infinite sound bites and anecdotes to choose from. Even better, they could let us vote for the best quotes as they come in. Some journalists are already using their blogs to find interview sources, but no one I am aware of is taking it to this next step.

Second, maybe there should be a universal Technorati tag that bloggers use to identify when they are publishing information specifically in response to reporters. This could be coupled with the above idea. For example, the formediainterviews tag right now is empty. This would make it easier for us to cull through all of the content bloggers are publishing in response to media requests via an RSS feed.

Finally, there could be a ping pong style approach where journalists blog questions to specific sources who blog. Then the source responds by linking to/trackbacking the post and then the process repeats itself over and over until the interview is over. Tedious? Sure. However, it would certainly generate rich dialogue not just in these blogs but overall.

Some of these may techniques might not work well in the real world. However, what is certain is that there is a lot of room to reinvent the media interview to make them more transparent and to give everyone access to all of the material that doesn't make it into print.

Tags: davewiner, markcuban

Comments

[David Tebbutt]

I do wonder about the stuff you write sometimes. I presume you do it to be provocative.

"For instance, what if reporters posted their questions out in the 'sphere and allowed prospective sources to respond either in comments or by linking to/trackbacking the post."

You know *exactly* why traditional media don't do that. Because they want exclusive stuff and sticking it in the blogosphere means their competitors can get hold of it.

Oh no. Traditional media will persist with these quaint methods and delaying publication until weeks or months after the interview until it stops working for them.

From a journalist's point of view, they can interview and blog and earn no money. Or very little. Or they can play the publishers' game until the money runs dry.

Me? I'm a conventional journalist, columnist and blogger. I'm playing both sides. I'd rather cannibalize me than have someone else do it.

But I'm not daft enough to reveal all my questions, sources and their responses because it will kill my income.

Cynical? Maybe. Practical? Certainly.

Hope this helps.

[David Tebbutt]

Seems as if my typekey account isn't working. I've written to Six Apart.

If anyone's interested my blog is at http://teblog.typepad.com/

[Danny]

Dave Winer didn't invent RSS or blogging. The history of each is well documented across many sources on the Web. It doesn't reflect well on journalism new or old that myths are so eagerly propagated. Oh yeah, and stating something on the public record doesn't make it any more true.

[Catherine Girardeau]

As a trad journalist, I can see the advantages of tapping the blogosphere for sources and source material. Bloggers and journalists are both out there gathering news -- it's about time for some creative thinking about innovating and collaborating.(As a podcaster, I need an audio version of the collective group interview you suggest -- working on that!)
My question is, what's in it for bloggers?

[Karine Joly]

Steve,

I've been blogging at collegewebeditor.com since February 2005 about a niche: marketing, PR and Web in higher education. Last Fall, I was offered a column by one of the main publications in this market: University Business.

Since I started to work for this publication, I've been doing only email interviews for 2 reasons:

1) I'm sure I'll get the quotes right ;-)

2) I publish the full interviews on my blog when the column is published (2 months after the interview, which I let people know in the posts)

This provides more information to the readers and is a way to make sure the sources will spend a bit more time on my requests (they're killing 2 birds with one stone).

[Catherine Girardeau]

As a trad journalist, I can see the advantages of tapping the blogosphere for sources and source material. Bloggers and journalists are both out there gathering news -- it's about time for some creative thinking about innovating and collaborating.(As a podcaster, I need an audio version of the collective group interview you suggest -- working on that!)
My question is, what's in it for bloggers?

[David Tebbutt]

Heh. Interesting comment on Dave Winer.

I spent over 20 years feeling very resentful towards Dave. But it was my own stupid fault, I had a competing product and he 'stole' one of its features. Except, of course, he didn't really. I showed it to him to show how my product was superior to his. What did I expect him to do?

Anyway, I offer that as backdrop to what happened next. I was a columnist, getting paid for it and winning awards. I was feeling jolly pleased with myself and, along comes Dave, and starts writing these irritating (to me) online columns. I think this was in 1994.

Already resentful towards him, I thought 'who the hell does he think he is?' Little did I know that this expression of a personal voice was a sign of things to come.

It wasn't until I started using OPML and Grazr that I grudgingly admitted that, although still largely irritated by Dave, the resentment that I'd harboured all those years evaporated.

He may not have been the first blogger or invented RSS by any official account but he's certainly played an indelible part in helping both become mainstream.

But I still wouldn't cross the street to say "hello" to him. Even though we did get on famously when we met in January 1984. (Softcon, SuperDome, New Orleans.)

[Shel Holtz]

Email interviews work fine when the story is destined for text. What would NPR or "60 Minutes" do? Quotes are right, of course, because they're committed to video and/or audio, but the other advantages of email interviews get lost. Another reason to not use email: Sometimes a reporter doesn't WANT to give the subject time to think about the answer. Call it an ambush interview or a hostile interview, but it's still a part of the journalist's toolkit: Hit the subject with an unanticipated question to see what comes out of his mouth while the camera is rolling. Email won't work here, either.

Like all tools, email for interviews is fine when it makes sense. It will not make sense all the time.

[Shel Holtz]

Email interviews work fine when the story is destined for text. What would NPR or "60 Minutes" do? Quotes are right, of course, because they're committed to video and/or audio, but the other advantages of email interviews get lost. Another reason to not use email: Sometimes a reporter doesn't WANT to give the subject time to think about the answer. Call it an ambush interview or a hostile interview, but it's still a part of the journalist's toolkit: Hit the subject with an unanticipated question to see what comes out of his mouth while the camera is rolling. Email won't work here, either.

Like all tools, email for interviews is fine when it makes sense. It will not make sense all the time.

[Rusty Cawley]

Journalists had better get used to the idea of the email interview. First, the next generation of executives, officials and other leaders will demand it for the same reason Mark Cuban demands it: To protect their butts. Second, because consumers of news are demanding more and more transparancy from their sources of news. They've had enough of journalists who twist, turn and fabricate quotes.

As for broadcast media, any interview subject who fails to bring his or her own videocamera to tape the session is a fool. As a crisis communications consultant (see www.outrage.typepad.com), I've long advocated this. The reporter has to know you have a copy of the interview, unedited, and that you are prepared to counter any misuse of your words.

Sources no longer trust reporters, and neither do readers. Deal with it.

[James Kew]

Doesn't Dave's habit of during-the-day revisions (and deletions) of posts to Scripting News make it a rather unreliable journalistic record?

[David Tebbutt]

Rusty: a voice recorder is all that's needed - cheaper and more discreet.

[Ian Delaney]

I'm conventional journalist and a blogger. Email interviews sometimes work well. Quite often, though, it's a disaster. On the one hand, writing takes a lot more effort than talking, so sometimes the responses you get take ages to arrive or are a bit superficial.

The other issue is that it gives interviewees every reason to say *exactly* the same things to every interviewer. Or even get an agent to write it for them. This isn't helping anyone deliver more transparency. And it certainly isn't interesting for readers.

I'm not looking to trick my interviewees, but it is nice to get them to think on the spot and talk about things off the top of their heads. Even if the response isn't as polished as it might be in writing, it gives a lot more insight into their personality, gut reactions and approach to problems. Those things are something that characterise the best-written interviews, and can't really be achieved without a conversation.

Assuming people *want* to be interviewed, I don't think it's too selfish, then, for publications to want original material.

[Ian Delaney]

I'm conventional journalist and a blogger. Email interviews sometimes work well. Quite often, though, it's a disaster. On the one hand, writing takes a lot more effort than talking, so sometimes the responses you get take ages to arrive or are a bit superficial.

The other issue is that it gives interviewees every reason to say *exactly* the same things to every interviewer. Or even get an agent to write it for them. This isn't helping anyone deliver more transparency. And it certainly isn't interesting for readers.

I'm not looking to trick my interviewees, but it is nice to get them to think on the spot and talk about things off the top of their heads. Even if the response isn't as polished as it might be in writing, it gives a lot more insight into their personality, gut reactions and approach to problems. Those things are something that characterise the best-written interviews, and can't really be achieved without a conversation.

Assuming people *want* to be interviewed, I don't think it's too selfish, then, for publications to want original material.

[Shel Holtz]

Rusty, I certainly agree that interview subjects need to make their own copies of interviews -- Coors did this with 60 Minutes back in the 70s or 80s, and it's still a good idea.

But sometimes the media actually goes after bad people and showing up on their doorstep with a microphone in hand is a legitimate technique. A reporter is not going to request an email interview with a crook he's trying to catch in a lie. Not every media interview is a PR opportunity.

[Mike Bawden]

Steve,

Thanks for the compelling post. I think there could be some significant social benefits from a media interview process that was more open and transparent - and have written a bit more on the subject on my Much Ado About Marketing blog.

I can understand journalists' concerns about wanting original material and exclusive interviews - but I don't see this kind of interview completely replacing the need for unique or exclusive material.

[George Plumley]

I don't think the point of the Mark Cuban example is to say that all interviews should be conducted by email, for obvious reasons that other commenters have pointed out, but rather, that people who are interviewed should keep complete copies of their interviews (text, video, audio)and if possible post these online.

What's interesting in all this talk of increased transparency is that it will mean an increased need for journalists. We can talk all we want about letting people decide for themselves by reading full interview transcripts on the internet, but who has the time, especially as the volume of information explodes exponentially? We need more people who can sift the material, organize it, and condense it. Come to think of it, it's the journalist doing research who will benefit the most from transparency of media interviews.

[Sunny Smith]

I agree with Ian - there is a lot to be gained by face to face or tele-interviews which is lost through email. Not only are details of facial expressions, tone of voice, pauses and laughter invaluable ways to add human interest to an interview and further insight into the interviewee, but an interviewer also has so much more control over the information they can gather. Probing further when glib answers are given or following up with an impromptu question often leads to very interesting and worthwhile information which would be absent from an email or blog interview.

But posting/publishing entire transcripts, when only small snippets are used in the final product is a great practice for cross-promotion (having the edited interview/piece appear on a website while the entire interview [via transcript or pod cast] can be found on the journalist's blog).

[Jeremy Pepper]

Steve, Steve, Steve. Another one of your "deep" think pieces.

Sure, call out Winer and Cuban as examples, but the truth is that Cuban does not like a situation he cannot control (sorta counter that whole social media vibe, huh), and Winer can be insufferable. Watch Cuban lose his cool at an NBA game (I have the Mavs falling out before the finals, btw); you tell me if that's someone that likes to give up control during an interview.

When I did my interviews, I only did them via phone (more honesty and less canned answers) and did fact-check before posting. But, well, I also called up FedEx and Kryptonite to get the real facts (something alien to most bloggers, including you).