|
|
May 21, 2007
Howard Kurtz Sez: "The humble interview, the linchpin of journalism for centuries, is under assault."Kurtz asked me to do "an e-mail interview about doing e-mail interviews, or not doing interviews at all." I agreed. He also said "I'd be happy to have you publish the exchange [after] I write my story." So here it is.Today Howard Kurtz’s column in the Washington Post is called Interviews, Going the Way of the Linotype? “It is a transaction that clearly favors the person asking the questions,” he says. (Which is true.) His column is mostly based on an e-mail interview he did with me about that transaction. There’s a back story, as he put it…
and two prior PressThink posts:
I’ve talked to Kurtz a bunch of times over the years, and he’s always been accurate and fair with me. In that spirit, you can compare this to what he wrote in the Post. Kurtz: What disappointed you most about the New York Times article—since, after all, no reporter can include all the comments by each person he interviews for a daily piece? Did you feel your views were misrepresented, or just oversimplified? Rosen: I’ve done hundreds of interviews with reporters, including Jim. I consider it part of my job, generally enjoy it and have no complaints. You’ve interviewed me a bunch of times; I’ve never had a beef with the way I was quoted in your pieces. Usually I learn something from reporters. In fact, I did a phone interview on the same subject—the correspondents’ dinner—two days after my [Rutenberg] post. So I am well aware that not all of my comments, or even most, or even ten percent will appear in the final story. What disappointed me was that the story was framed as a bloggers vs. journalists or partisans vs. the pros thing, as if the people jeering at the invitation to Rich Little were mainly online activists. I had tried to contest that interpretation in the interview but somehow got recruited into it. Now, as a student of the press I ask myself: why did that happen? My answer is: it happened because a certain narrative takes hold in the reporter’s mind. I thought it was the wrong one for the event. Rutenberg disagreed with me. The thing is, David Carr and Frank Rich disagreed with him. That’s what my post says. Kurtz: You’ve certainly been quite available, and generous with your time. In that case, why reconsider the old-fashioned practice of doing interviews (even if done via e-mail)? Do you find yourself agreeing with Jeff Jarvis that “the interview is outmoded and needs to be rethought”? Rosen: Yes and no. Outmoded goes too far. There will be plenty of situations in which a face-to-face sit down will be the best option, others where a phone interview under the old rules will work splendidly. So should the “traditional” news interview be junked? No, it still works; it’s an essential tool in the craft. But I agree with Jeff that re-thinking the interview is important because in some situations the balance of power has shifted. Everyone used to be landlocked, and the media was the outlet to the sea of public discussion. But now there are many routes. When sources can “go direct,” as Dave Winer says, when they can get their views out through an online world that welcomes their participation, there may be less of a percentage in trying to speak through reporters. My favorite example is Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks. I don’t think people will quit talking to reporters. But the terms and conditions may change. Readers have more power because they have more sources, and sources have more power because they can go direct to readers. By the way, years ago I quit doing taped television interviews suitable for soundbiting in a news report. I will go on live (though I rarely get asked) but don’t do taped unless it’s a full length documentary because there is no percentage in it. Kurtz: “No percentage in it” because your views aren’t given their due, or because it takes so much time for so little end product — meaning that only a snippet or two of your wisdom winds up being used? Rosen: Takes so much time for so little a contribution to public discussion. Kurtz: Are you disappointed overall in the way journalists use interviews, given some of your less-than-satisfying experiences? Rosen: General disappointment? I would not go that far, no. And I think sources and journalists will continue to cooperate in interviews, but the basis for trust might be clarified as both sides adjust to new conditions and a different balance of power. For example, you said to me: you can run this when I do. Different rules, reflecting different conditions. This isn’t one, but there are situations in which there’s no percentage for me in participating. That’s what I meant to say. Kurtz: To segue into Assignment Zero, why do you say only about 28 percent of what you tried worked? What worked and what didn’t? Rosen: Well, one thing is that in the beginning were shocked by how many people signed up and wanted to contribute. I thought we’d have maybe 250 for the whole project and we had 500 in a few days, ultimately more than 900 who joined Assignment Zero. [Actually it’s over 1,000 now.] When we had that burst of enthusiasm we did not have the right system in place for handling or directing it, and by the time we had something better in place we did not have the same enthusiasm. Also, I don’t think we found a clear path to participation for all these potential contributors. Our idea of breaking this big trend story into 50 plus “story parts,” each of which would draw amateur contributors who would figure out how to start checking them out, did not prove equal to the challenge of pro-am journalism under real world conditions. It was insufficiently developed. So we had to adapt and modify it. This is what I meant by 28 percent of we tried worked. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Get ready for…. Off the Bus: Campaign coverage by people who aren’t in the club. Or on the bus. Off the Bus (offthebus.net) is going to be the name of my collaboration in campaign journalism with Arianna Hufffington, which was announced in March. It’s of course a reference to The Boys on the Bus, the most famous book ever written on the campaign press, and the campaign bus as used by Clinton-Gore, John McCain and others. The project will bring together NewAssignment.Net, the Huffington Post and hundreds of citizen contributors. Katharine Seelye of the New York Times wrote about it for the Caucus, the Times political blog: A New Campaign Media Entry. Come fall, campaign junkies will have yet another way to get their political news, one that will rely largely on ordinary citizens, not political reporters or media pundits. Speaking of NewAssignment.Net, here’s a pretty good video interview with me (presented in its entirety) by Robert Mills of the American Microphone series. It’s all about New Assignment. The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger tells a gathering of ombudsmen: “Everything we do is going to become more contestable, more open to challenge.” See this report by Jeff Jarvis. Tired the bloggers vs. journalists frame up? Do something about it! Two researchers at Texas Tech and the Univ. of Tennessee-Knoxville are asking for PressThink readers to help them in compiling a better understanding of how people actually use blogs to inform themselves Go here to help them out. They need to know how your news mind works when it uses the Web. Jossip gets into the act: Assault on the Interview. And Dan Kennedy thinks Kurtz has some history wrong. See Rhetorica for more. Chris Nolan’s stand alone operation, Spot On—twelve writers on politics and current events—gets a distribution deal with Washington-Post-Newsweek-Interactive. Press release. Hillary Rosner is senior editor of Assignment Zero, which is concluding its experiment with Interview Week. In the comments. she writes: “If media outlets ran stories based only on what their sources wanted to say, they’d be little more than public relations tools.” Tom Matrullo of IMproPRieTies in the comments: What’s missing is any openness to the idea that an interview can be truly dialogic - that the interviewer has as much to learn as the interviewee. That, rather than a product designed in advance, it might be a rupture of journalism as usual - an intervention that sideswipes the story, the understanding of the master narrative, the mastery of the interviewer - introducing complexity, dissonance, into the smooth pre-formatted product plotted by the interviewer. Paul Lukasiak says that “interview subjects need to be extremely cautious about what they say to journalists” because “reporters like Kurtz will choose the facts that fit the pre-determined narrative.”
Posted by Jay Rosen at May 21, 2007 12:57 AM
Comments
Jay, The one problem I guess I see with your resolve is that interview subjects aren't scarce sources. If they don't interview you maybe the next time they'll go to Howard Kurtz or Steven Johnson or Michelle Malkin. The TV reporters will be even more willing to find another schmoe to talk on camera, any schmoe will do. It's not quite the "J.D. Salinger" thing you are doing, you are making yourself available, but only on your terms. But I would say then you are a) okay with the concept of being quoted and seen less and b) okay with the idea that the those who fail to quote you will simply find other sources who will play by those rules. I think the balance of power is still on the side of the media because ultimately they will legitmatize other people if you won't cooperate. Rutenberg, and those like him, will still find someone to quote, it just not going to be you next time. I think Kurtz represented your views accurately. Of course, Kurtz knew he was "being watched", and couldn't afford to engage in his usually shoddy practices (see the stuff about the Fox GOP debate "winning plaudits in some unexpected places" which follows the piece on interviews. Slate, with its knee-jerk contrarianism, is not an "unexpected place" to find praise for Fox, and NPR has grown notorious for its increasingly conservative slant. And Knowles at AOL is an outlier among Fox critics -- and seems not to have watched the first debate if he thinks that Ron Paul didn't set himself apart during that one. And how come Kurtz still hasn't mastered the art of linking? ) In other words, while Kurtz managed to "keep things honest" in his interview with you, the very next subject he writes about demonstrates why interview subjects need to be extremely cautious about what they say to journalists -- that reporters like Kurtz will choose the facts that fit the pre-determined narrative, and ignore mountains of contrary evidence if it interferes with that narrative. (The "liberal" blogosphere pretty much condemned the Fox moderators, and Kurtz pretended that they -- and their criticisms of the debate -- did not exist.) *********** "I think one of the basic functions of journalism is to interview people and have discussions," Rutenberg counters. "If we accepted that from the White House, I have a feeling many readers of [Rosen's] blog would have a problem with that. . . . To me that's more message control." Unsurprisingly, Rutenberg has it precisely wrong here. Practiced interview subjects (i.e. most politicians and government spokespeople) already know how to avoid answering substantive questions while appearing to be responsive. Written Q & As make avoidance significantly more difficult to achieve, and far more easy to detect. (Tony Snow "live" is entertaining, and while you know he's not answering questions, his personal charisma limits the damage. But read a transcript of a press gaggle and it becomes appallingly obvious just how unresponsive he is.) ************** When you see someone's expressions or listen to someone's voice, you get a sense of the person that words on a screen lack. A back-and-forth in real time often leads to illuminating moments. And, of course, typed answers can be rather bloodless -- and they make it impossible for me to write, he said with a smile:). Since journalism is the art of compression... (ah Kismet! This folds into my last comment on the previous thread). Kurtz here demonstrates another glaring failure of modern journalism -- the preference for "impressions" rather than facts in pursuit of "he said/she said" journalism. Unless someone is doing a "profile" piece, such "impressions" should be practically irrelevant --- the facts are what is important, not the journalist's personal feelings about the interview subject. Indeed, Kurtz' entire piece is a glaring example of "he said/she said" journalism at its "finest." It has very little to do with the facts concerning the manipulation of interviews by journalists, its simply an exploration of opinions. Of particular note is Kurtz's complete failure in his interview with you to ask you about other examples of interview abuse -- he doesn't seem to care about whether your opinions have a solid foundation in facts -- its all about your "expert opinion." And the impression is left that your opinion is based not on your knowledge and expertise as a scholar, but on your disappointing encounter with Rutenberg. Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 21, 2007 8:36 AM | Permalink This interview is dissatisfying in terms of what it gets to. The reason might be that a master narrative lies coiled inside Mr. Kurtz, controlling his questions and understanding of Mr. Rosen's responses. Kurtz seems to view the interview as a transactional proprietary space which offers a certain quantum of power to the players - an "end product" which delivers, or fails to deliver, something "due", some predictable bang for the buck, something in return for something invested, etc. Mr. Rosen points toward the idea of a larger public discourse to which the work of an interview can contribute, but that goes nowhere. What's missing is any openness to the idea that an interview can be truly dialogic - that the interviewer has as much to learn as the interviewee. That, rather than a product designed in advance, it might be a rupture of journalism as usual - an intervention that sideswipes the story, the understanding of the master narrative, the mastery of the interviewer - introducing complexity, dissonance, into the smooth pre-formatted product plotted by the interviewer. Posted by: tom matrullo at May 21, 2007 8:48 AM | Permalink As a pro journalist with 15 years on the job: Good interviewers know that the subject will introduce information that is unexpected and may -- indeed, should -- contradict other statements made by other interviewees. In fact, the solicitation of points of view is the purpose of interviews (that, and a chance to include the colorful, interesting way some people actually speak). No matter how much research is done before the interview starts, no good journalist walks into an interview knowing what she/he will wind up including in the story. If the journalist did that, she/he would be engaging in poor interviewing -- something I see constantly in television news interviews, btw -- and, worse, in poor news gathering. Interviews are intended to gather information and points of view, not to support the reporter's preconceived argument. That's the difference between objective journalism and rhetoric. Posted by: Greg Weatherford at May 21, 2007 9:32 AM | Permalink Television news has long followed the axiom that "voiceovers give the facts; interviews express emotion." This is why TV reporters generally don't like their questions being used in stories, because they are intended to evoke emotion and come off as uncaring and, well, stupid. "How did it feel to watch your child being torn apart by the pit bull?" Yeesh. This goes back to the deliberate dismantling of "Big J" aspects of journalism in the name of creating "good" television. Bill Hillier was the author of much of this, and his PM/Evening Magazine created the source code. A key part of it was the ability to tell "the story" in one sentence before going out the door. This was a necessary part of good television storytelling, because one could control the amount of videotape shot in the field, a discipline required by the time demands of daily deadlines. So I think you're smart to avoid such, Jay, although you can simultaneously videotape any TV interview and make it available online, just as you would one done by email. I personally tend to agree with Jeff about where the interview is headed, because I think we continue to underestimate an empowered public. Whatever happens, I'm not afraid of it. Free people have a way of creating what they need, and as the institutions of modernity evolve in our increasingly postmodern world, I have to believe we'll find a better way. Posted by: Terry Heaton at May 21, 2007 10:21 AM | Permalink Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post, and Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, are collaborating on a Web site they are calling “offthebus.net,” in which bloggers will cover the top six candidates in each party. you may wish to attempt to co-ordinate your efforts with Josh Marshall over at TPM Media, who is trying to organize a "crowdsourcing" effort wherein his audience videotapes as many of the candidates' appearances as possible, and sends noteworthy stuff to his site. Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 21, 2007 10:31 AM | Permalink While it’s great that sources can now “go direct,” as you say, that doesn’t make journalists or their tools obsolete. In fact, it makes them more important than ever. If media outlets ran stories based only on what their sources wanted to say, they’d be little more than public relations tools. Part of the job of a professional reporter is to sift through the information they gather, separating truth from spin and making judgment calls about which details are most important. And this is something that I think gets lost in the discussion: journalism is a profession, practiced by trained professionals who understand the rules and responsibilities. Framing this in terms of a power struggle between reporters and their sources is the wrong approach. It’s not about power—it’s about dissemination of information to the public. While email interviews are fine in some cases, most of the time an in-person or phone interview is far better. It’s no different than having a conversation with a friend or colleague: email just doesn’t do it justice. If more and more sources start refusing to be interviewed except via email--or in other ways on terms that they set with the express goal of retaining control, the public suffers. Posted by: Hillary Rosner at May 21, 2007 11:16 AM | Permalink "If more and more sources start refusing to be interviewed except via email--or in other ways on terms that they set with the express goal of retaining control, the public suffers." I agree with that. From my post: "So should the 'traditional; news interview be junked? No, it still works; it’s an essential tool in the craft." I also said that for myself as source "there are situations in which there’s no percentage for me in participating." That's a heads-up for journalists who think something would be lost if sources stopped doing phoners and face-to-face. Maybe the percentages could be improved a little, right? Won't sources always stop cooperating if there is no percentage in it for them? catrina: you are right about them getting someone else for the same slot, who gets whatever goods while the narrative remains unchanged. Nonetheless, I have to ask myself what practices I am going to join in, and I am under an obligation to think it through. This is Press-think we're in. Sources are tired of their quotes being taken out of context, or cherry picked by reporters. Rather than respond to a journo’s list of questions, they’ll simply blog their answer, and a reporter is free to quote from the blog, which everyone else is free to read, too! Yeah, it is. But if's it's all one practice--journalism and blogging are writing on the web--then we're all figuring out the practice under shifting conditions. If more and more sources start refusing to be interviewed except via email--or in other ways on terms that they set with the express goal of retaining control, the public suffers. The "public suffering" at the hands of journalists seems to be, like death and taxes, an inevitability in the current environment. The question is whether what would be lost to the public through fewer sources willing to be "live interviewed" versus what would be gained by keeping reporters honest and through the use of alternatives like email interviews. I think we need to be far less concerned about "controlling the message", because "the message" shouldn't be what journalists are concentrating on to begin with, and the only sources who don't "control their own message" in live interviews are "amateurs". This concern with people "controlling their own message" reeks of "gotcha journalism", and (especially in the field of public affairs) the public discussion winds up focussing on faux pas and gaffes rather than on real issues and relevant facts. I suspect that one of the reasons professioanl journalists have such antipathy toward "email interviews" is that it creates a risk of exposure for them. As I and others suggested above, the questions that are asked by journalists tell us a great deal about their own perspective on a story. One need only compare the two "email interviews" in this and the previous thread to understand why this should be important to the audience.... and why "professional journalists" might feel threatened by having their question "on the record." Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 21, 2007 1:46 PM | Permalink I really don't think that the reason some journalists don't like to conduct email interviews is because of a "risk of exposure." Rather, it's because the dialogue usually isn't of nearly the same caliber. The back-and-forth just isn't the same, you can't hear the intonation in the person's voice or see the expression on their face, and you're a lot less likely to go off on a tangent--which tends to produce the most interesting information. In any profession--and any crowd of people--there are good people and bad. Some people have high standards for ethics and integrity and truth, and others have none. So it's ridiculous to lump all journalists together as one huge bad egg. There are journalists who have no integrity, who misquote or take people out of context, who like to present things as black and white or x vs y. And then there are others who are painstakingly responsible and beyond reproach. People like to bash journalists--and there are absolutely many in the profession worthy of bashing. But try getting your information only from amateurs and I think you'll notice a big gaping void. Why are journalists the subject of attack? Is anyone suggesting that nurses, or accountants, or filmmakers--all of which professions will likely have the same ratio of idiots to heroes--are a useless lot that should be replaced by amateurs and hobbyists? For every instance of "public suffering" at the hands of journalists, there's an instance of public service. We're not as homogenous--and as uniformly evil--as you make us out to be. Honest. Posted by: Hillary Rosner at May 21, 2007 2:48 PM | Permalink "there are situations in which there’s no percentage for me in participating" When Jay does it, it's "go[ing] direct." But when the White House does it, it's "rollback." "Pre-determined narrative" for thee but not for me... Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 21, 2007 4:01 PM | Permalink People like to bash journalists--and there are absolutely many in the profession worthy of bashing. But try getting your information only from amateurs and I think you'll notice a big gaping void. Why are journalists the subject of attack? Is anyone suggesting that nurses, or accountants, or filmmakers--all of which professions will likely have the same ratio of idiots to heroes--are a useless lot that should be replaced by amateurs and hobbyists? ...and here we thought journalists vs bloggers was dead. Hillary, the subject at hand has nothing to do with replacing "professionals" with amateurs. Its about interviews, how they are conducted, and issues related to that. Nor do I think that anyone is really suggesting that "live" interviews be completely eliminated. Ultimately, the question should revolve around the best means of getting relevant factual information to the audience -- and I personally think as an "audience" member that email interviews present a host of advantages over "live" ones for the audience. Its a means of gathering information that should (and, IMHO will be) embraced by GOOD journalists -- and will be strongly resisted by "bad" journalists. ***************** "Pre-determined narrative" for thee but not for me... it never ceases to amaze me that there are people who cannot make the distinction between a private individual and the federal government when it comes to "controlling the message". Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 22, 2007 9:37 AM | Permalink to change the subject... How can one contact these individuals, to let them know that their survey (long, but I don't know how long since I bailed) needs some sort of progress bar? Posted by: Anna Haynes at May 22, 2007 12:07 PM | Permalink please ignore or better yet delete the previous comment, i am an idiot. "The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, please e-mail us at ..." Posted by: anna at May 22, 2007 12:09 PM | Permalink "...and here we thought journalists vs bloggers was dead. ..." Paul, Hillary's new here, and if we want her to stick around (I do), Smashing Heads Does Not Open Minds. Posted by: anna at May 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Permalink I agree that reporters are often seeking quotes to support their pre-conceived narrative (articles in The Economistdo not do this -- the correspondent summarizes interviewees' views). I'm not sure what "the interview" has to do with by-passing journalists, however. Mark Cuban can blog but he depends on fan 'pull' to get his message out versus the 'push' of a newsletter, email to fans, or a Cuban-owned radio or cable broadcast. For most people wanting public attention they need the journalists because they lack the ablility to pull the public while journalists can do so. What I find more interesting is the de-centralization of news -- e.g., people watch post-prime time local news instead of pre-prime time national broadcasts to learn about national and international news. Clinton, it should be noted, pioneered the use of interviews with local stations through cheaper satellite feeds to bypass national press. Local reporters were less likely to ask critical questions than national broadcasters.
Posted by: C. L. Ball at May 22, 2007 3:54 PM | Permalink As a candidate in the Democratic Primary for OR 02 Congressional District I participated in several interviews and the results of 2 were interesting. The Oregonian (Portland, OR) is the paper of record and somewhat conservative and business oriented and The Source (Bend, OR) is a weekly with a definite progressive slant; I was interviewed by each. The Oregonian conducted a telephone interview - 1 reporter and The Source had a face to face editorial board interview with all 4 candidates, the interviews were within 1 1/2 weeks of each other and my views/policy statements had no difference. These interviews were not for quote purposes but rather editorial purposes and I fully expected the results to be a reflection of the papers' views. The outcome was...odd. The Oregonian rated me as the most conservative of the candidates and light on policy, The Source rated me as the most progessive of the candidates and worthy of their unanimous endorsement. I won't go into my "peculiar" version of progressive, the blog reflects/is it so if you want to analyze it is available. I do believe that the Oregonian's editorial was a result of their outlook, they weighted the parts of my policy that reflected their conservative view and discounted or devalued the portions that were progressive. The candidate whom they endorsed was a "classical liberal." I don't object, I simply note. Posted by: chuckbutcher at May 22, 2007 5:24 PM | Permalink One of my all time favorite comments at Pressthink: What I'd like to know is why we never hear about all the good stories about what a great job the mainstream media is doing. Every day, hundreds of thousands of reporters and editors throughout the USA are helping democracy in America with solid reporting --- but all we hear about are the mistakes and errors. Why should we tar all journalists with the errors of a few bad apples? There is certainly no proof that responsibility goes all the way to the top of news organizations! If the media critics would provide a fair and balanced view of journalism, and highlight the great work being done by the reporters who go out each day, the media war would soon be over! Two more of my all time favorites: Jay Rosen: Well, Sisyphus, we also have to consider the possibility that the press has been operating for a long while with an incoherent philosophy that is not in the end consistent and does not make total sense. re: "too funny" Actually, it must be profoundly sad for journalists to realize that their "skills" were only worth the paper they were printed on. Now that pixels are an essentially free commodity, journalists' "skills" are laid bare as a grab bag of tricks and sleights of hand, increasingly failing to cover for their tendency towards ignorance and groupthink. On the other hand, they should be glad they're not surgeons; they would have been sued for malpractice -- if not charged with criminal negligence -- long ago. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2007 9:56 PM | Permalink Jay, It's unclear to me... did you just mean you were reconsidering giving oral interviews in the context of *these TV pieces* (that just take way too much of your time and deliver a minute contribution to public discourse) or... were you reconsidering it on a much broader scale? Delia Deal with it, Delia. After years of berating President Bush for his "rollback" of traditional press narrative structures, Jay is attempting some rollback of his own. Now that is too funny. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2007 11:25 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 23, 2007 1:22 AM | Permalink Paul, Hillary's new here, and if we want her to stick around (I do), Smashing Heads Does Not Open Minds. I agree, anna, and I apologize to Hillary if I was too harsh, because her informed and serious support for traditional media is something we don't get enough of here. the comment was intented to keep the thread on-topic, and focus on constructive ideas (e.g. what are the advantages of email interviews) -- but I guess it didn't come across as intended. Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 23, 2007 9:42 AM | Permalink Sir "Neuro": Of all the clowns, fools, trolls and jerks I have met online--and that's a fairly large number--you are without question the dumbest. And that is what I think of your "comparison." Delia: I told Kurtz that I had years ago stopped doing the soundbite thing for TV news, local and national. That's the only categorical decision I have made. I too was a little mystified by Hillary's "try getting your information only from amateurs and I think you'll notice a big gaping void." I agree there would be a big void; I just don't know who's suggesting we get our information solely from amateurs. Yes, Jay... But your mentioned in your prior two entries that you were reconsidering giving oral interviews (at least that's what stuck *me* as interesting). So, consistent with what you've said so far (if I understand it right), you only made the categorical decision not to do soundbite for TV news but... you *have* reconsidered giving oral interviews in other circumstances, also... Right? If so, what were your reasons for reconsidering it in those other circumstances? (I think you already gave some reasons, such as having your responses questionably framed, but I get the impression that there must be more to it.) Delia P.S. What would it take for you to stop giving oral interviews altogether (if you see this as a possibility). D. I would not stop giving phoners or face-time interviews altogether; in fact, I explicitly ruled that out in what I wrote and told Kurtz. But I would be more likely now to say to reporters: if you already have your basic story--a reported narrative in place--and you need someone to add a sentence of commentary, then the best way to do that is by email. Others have more far-reaching policies than I do. I decline to be interviewed for all kinds of reasons; one of the most common is, "I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about the subject." "Is There a Shared Watchdog Role for the Public, the Blogs & Ombudsmen?" Jarvis spoke of “the ethic of the link,” saying: “If you quote me, why not link to everything else I've said? Not everybody is going to read it. But if I say I was quoted out of context, well the context is there.” ... you would *never* stop giving oral interviews altogether? (no matter what...) -- ok ... (I didn't think what you wrote and told Kurtz went that far...especially in the light of your prior entries; it seemed to me that there were plenty of things that weren't working nearly as well as of late and if they continued to get worse that was a possibility -- that at some point you'd just quit doing it altogether) D. Well, if someone from the press says to me, "... I'm doing a story about _____ but I am not really sure yet what my approach is, so I would like to talk to you, and probably I won't quote you, but it would help me to test some ideas..." or words to that effect, I will always talk to that reporter, often for an hour or more, as long as I feel I know something about the subject. you would *never* stop giving oral interviews altogether? from what I hear, our host has already made plans for when he shuffles off this mortal coil, and we'll have Zombie Jay Rosen expounding on how "Undead vs Mortal is Over" ;) Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 23, 2007 8:58 PM | Permalink don't give them ideas, Jay:)...(they could just *say* that even if they've already made up their mind if they know you would always talk to them if they say that...) ; sorry about the trolls -- I'm going to stop here on that account... D. The journalistic interview is hardly a centuries-old linchpin. Media historians generally trace it only to 1836, when James Gordon Bennett, founder of the New York Herald, interviewed the proprietor of a brothel while covering a prostitute's murder. Posted by: Dan Kennedy at May 24, 2007 1:18 PM | Permalink marginally on-topic Ana Marie Cox (formerly at wonkette, now at swampland) on the President's press conference Jim Rutenberg and the Prez: get a room, guys! Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 24, 2007 2:43 PM | Permalink It's true, Dan. Kurtz didn't ask me about the interview's history. Here's one: Josh Marshall, wandering around the conference, interviews me about NewAssignment.Net and OffTheBus. Josh Marshall, wandering around the conference, interviews me about NewAssignment.Net and OffTheBus. Jay... (the Assignment Zero website is acting wonky, so I couldn't determine if this has already been coverer) The guy who was interviewed after you was a Yale law professor (Yochai Benkler) who had some interesting stuff to say about the legal aspects of the whole subject of "creative commons" v "intellectual property rights." May I be so bold as to suggest that a (guest?) post focussing on the legal aspects and implications of these discussions might be worthwhile? Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 25, 2007 8:41 AM | Permalink "Speaking of NewAssignment.Net, here’s a pretty good video interview with me (presented in its entirety) by Robert Mills... It’s all about New Assignment." Not all. Money quotes: "It's always a great opportunity for young people when their elders are confused." and RM: What advice would you give to the political campaigns? JR: ...if I were the campaign director or the person responsible for making these decisions, what I would be alarmed about is that many of the changes that the online world brings to politics in fact disturb or threaten the kind of monopoly of knowledge that senior people in the campaign have had. And so if those senior people are allowed to make decisions about the use of the online world or the campaign's strategy for the internet, they will ensure that their monopoly continues. So you either have to find people in that group who realize that this is different, or you have to go around them somehow, or you have to limit their input - and this is a big problem. People who're in journalism - let's take the analogous problem - whose career and status are built on their mastery of the production ritual under a print platform, are very slow to grasp what is actually happening online. People whose expertise is tied up with the production process of the newspaper aren't going to tell their bosses that weblog technology has made these billion dollar investments available for like 29 dollars on the web; they're not going to actually understand that. And so the biggest problem is that - it's that the people who run campaigns, who've always run campaigns, now confront conditions that weaken their own control and monopoly over the campaign. And so what are those people going to do? Without intervention, they're going to minimize this disruptive element, and they do it by accepting, it's not by rejecting, it's death by acceptance - where they say oh yeah, we're going to be online, we're going to be organizing people to do this, and we're going to blog - and they just make sure that it's trivial or that it bombs, or they have no intuitive feel for it, or it's symbolic gestures but really you want to keep the same message machine in place. And that's what a lot of campaigns will end up doing; I think most campaigns will have a symbolic response to social media and keep things exactly the same. And there'll be a few that don't - and those will be the ones to watch. Posted by: procrastinator at May 25, 2007 5:52 PM | Permalink Thanks for posting that. Paul: Benkler is one of the world's authorities on the subject, and we tried to get him for Assignment Zero, but so far we have not succeeded. No one knows more about it than he does. In fact we did interview him (briefly) for Assignment Zero, and here it is. "I think one of the basic functions of journalism is to interview people and have discussions," Rutenberg counters. "If we accepted that from the White House, I have a feeling many readers of [Rosen's] blog would have a problem with that. . . . To me that's more message control." Like p.l,this quote also struck me. The only way I can read the second sentence is that he things there's some kind of DFH thing about wanting accurate reporting. And, of course, the answer is we would want to see the white house treated the same, with a hyperlink to a transcript or a recording of the entire interview, if conducted in person. If tone and body language are really important, then why not let the reader see it for him or herself? The short reason, in the old days, is that there were time and space limitations. But now there is no reason not to hyperlink the source's name to the entire interview. An email interview facilitates this transcription process. (Although nobody mentions the risk that the writer may not actually be the subject of the interview. I strongly doubt that most elected representatives could do a personal email interview.) But the idea that accurate reporting is something that Jay's readers care about, but, I dunno, LGF readers don't strikes me as just another manifestation of the consternation and dismay that transparency brings to these people. Posted by: jayackroyd at May 30, 2007 11:31 PM | Permalink Interviewing priorities from a reporter's standpoint: 1. In person is always best when you want to get to know the person, you want to understand how the person works and thinks and you have lots of open-ended questions to ask. It's imperative when you are still trying to figure out what the story is. 2. Telephone is second best, fine for asking a public official, for example, why he voted a certain way or his position on an issue, clumsy for delving deeply into issues. It works better with sources you know well and is invaluable on deadline. 3. E-mail may still be evolving as an interview form, but e-mail interviews too often read like a series of prepared statements. Depth is possible but slow and hopeless on deadline. Quotes are exact, which is helpful. 4. Actual prepared statements aren't worth much but can allow you to include a point of view from someone who would never talk to you anyway. 5. The most useful innovation in interviewing in my career wasn't the internet but the telephone answering machine. Ringing back repeatedly when you desperately needed a quote on deadline (especially if deadline was at midnight) was one of the toughest parts of the job -- particularly when you had to reach somebody likely to be hostile. Now you can leave a couple of phone messages, fire off an e-mail or maybe leave a comment at a website and be pretty sure you have covered your bases. Posted by: David Crisp at June 2, 2007 8:32 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
