This link has been bookmarked by 12 people . It was first bookmarked on 27 Apr 2007, by Wisely.
-
17 Mar 08
-
11 Nov 07
-
04 May 07
-
03 May 07
-
27 Apr 07
Martin StabeJeff Jarvis: "The interview is outmoded and needs to be rethought." ... "in the time of the empowered interviewee".
blog bloggers blogging email interviews journalism deliciousimport
-
-
Who says that reporters are in charge of interviews anymore? Why should they set terms? They are the ones who are seeking information.
-
Are interviews about information or gotcha moments?
-
Is this about information or drama? As a subject, wouldn’t you be wary of that? Or does the reporter want to catch the subject in a slip of the tongue? But what does that really accomplish? Isn’t it better to get considered, complete answers? What’s so wrong with enabling a subject to think about an answer, to review it and get it right before sending it? Isn’t accuracy and completeness the goal? When I came up in the business, I was taught not to review quotes with subjects before publication but now I see magazines doing just that; as Valleywag points out, reporters even negotiate quote approval. The only reason not to do that is that you don’t want to ruin the gotcha moment: ‘You said that.’ ‘Well, I didn’t mean it.’ ‘But you said it. Gotcha.’ ‘But it’s wrong, so can’t we correct that?’ ‘Gotcha.’ We’ve all misspoken. Should we be able to take back our own words?
-
My words are mine. Enough said.
-
Quotes need no longer be taken out of context. Isn’t that the greatest problem subjects have with how their words are treated? But that need no longer be a complaint. Why shouldn’t every quote, every snippet and soundbite, link to its context in the fuller interview? If the reporter has done a great job on the story, no one need click on those links. But if you want more or if you want to investigate the context in which this person said this thing, why not make that readily available, now that we have the ability, thanks to hyperlinks and permalinks? In fact, doesn’t this change the very structure of the story? Why shouldn’t that change, too? I’ve been arguing for sometime that online, there’s no reason to insert the standard background paragraph when you can link to full background. Ditto for interviews. Think of the finished story as a summary, a guide to more information. It may give you everything you want. Or it may link you to background if you’re new to the tale. Or it may link you to more depth if you want to dig deeper. Every story becomes a table of contents to knowledge. Let’s not just reexamine the interview. Let’s reexamine the architecture of the article.
-
That should force reporters to reexamine the human economics of the interview: because they have to and because they can, because the power dynamics of journalist-subject have changed and because they now have new tools to do interviews — and articles — in better ways. Why not at least try?
-
Yes, news really is a conversation.
-
Len Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 amAs a former newspaper reporter, I know the power a journalist used to have. It was god-like. One small thing I could do is piece two quotes together, like this: “Vogelstein wanted to talk to me about Arrington,” Jarvis wrote on his blog. “We talk about what’s worth talking about.” The second quote comes later in your blog post, but the arrangement of it implies that it immediately followed the first. I believe I never used this tool to do violence to what my interviewees were trying to say, as opposed to tightening up the flow of ideas and information. But damn, it’s easy to play with reality, and tempting. Thirty years later, with all this interactive ability, there is no reason for a journalist to hold onto the old ways of monopolizing the conversation. Good for Winer and Calacanis for pressing the point.
-
Chris Newman Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pmThere needs to be a change in the way interviews are done. I agree that a reporter should blog about what he or she is going to write and get feedback and questions from their readers. Also, if interviews are made public, then viewers can go back and listen to the entire conversation. That can help with potential problems like the “gotcha” moments and quotes taken out of context. As the way news is presented changes and evolves, so will the interviews. The way blogs are effecting news is going to help the evolution of interviews.
-
steve baker Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 6:46 pmEvery once in a while, I have a luminous interview. It’s usually a face to face discussion. I learn during the course of it, and it produces new ideas and new connections in my head. If it’s a really good interview, the other person feels the same way. Those are the interviews I treasure, and I’d never want to give them up for an email exchange. I’ve used e-mail “interviews” through the years for the routine gathering of facts or quotes. Not one of them has been memorable. I figure that the people who insist on this don’t want to talk to me, for one reason or another. That’s ok. If they’re feeling that way, we probably wouldn’t have a very good conversation anyway. That happens. By the way, if a person wants to converse but is worried about gotcha quotes or context, I’m happy to provide them with all the quotes and the surrounding context. It helps get things right.
-
Amdrew Pass Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pmJeff, Great article. But, unfortunately, I think it’s about five years too early for the general populace. Most people still read hard copies. They take the word of the reporter as gospel. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure that the average person knows how to bring skepticism to reading. Even if they read something online they likely accept it as truth, for it’s wrirten down. I recently saw a statisic of the perentage of people that read things on the web who actually write things on the web, as well. It’s about 2% I believe. People aren’t ready and/or willing to question.
-
-
26 Apr 07
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.