EMAIL INTERVIEWS, REDUX by Pamela White
Two years ago, I wrote a widely published article on email interviews. They are a viable tool for reporters and writers for a number of reasons:
* Time difference: It is easier to connect by email with someone living on the other side of the world. Email questions, wait for the answers, then email follow-ups, and an article can be written from anywhere about anyone.
* Language differences: Imagine trying to listen to questions and answer them in your non-native language. Many of us "speak" two or three languages but don't think very quickly or speak as elegantly as we would like in them. Being able to think through and write out answers in a foreign language can be a blessing to the person being interviewed and result in a better article for the reporter.
* Shy interviewees: Shyness can be a hindrance when want to interview someone who is not comfortable on the phone or in person. Allowing this person to respond to interview questions sent through email can still offer this shy person the opportunity to promote his or her work.
* Accurate quotes: No one can claim they didn't say what was published when you have an email from them with the exact words you used. Emails offer protection when dealing with intricate or volatile topics.
Recently I read an article about the downfalls of email interviews and want to offer these concerns as an update. These do not mean that email interviews have moved out of vogue, but rather that they are falling out of favor so be sure to ask your assignment editor if you may use email interviewing before you write the article.
* Lag Time Between Responses: You ask a question; the subject responds in three days. Your interview subject has had time to carefully think out an answer, consult with a lawyer, talk to other people, and then write a carefully crafted reply. Yes, you have an answer but is it the same one as if you had put the interviewee on the spot, looking into her eyes? The element of surprise has always been useful in investigative reporting, and email interviews utterly wipe out that possibility.
* Misrepresentation by Writers: When a writer pens an article based on an interview with a celebrity, he will most likely still write "She said 'We are still good friends,' while sipping a white wine," even if the interview was done through email. Sure, she wrote what is quoted and did include that she was drinking a glass of wine while writing the email, but that isn't clear in the article. It is more awkward to write, "In an email, she wrote, "we are still good friends," but it is also more accurate. The trend has moved to the need to clarify how the interview was done, especially when it was done through email.
* Misrepresentation by Interview Subject: How do you know who wrote the email? If you are interviewing someone through email, you may be sure it's the right person responding, but thanks to the anonymity of the internet and email, readers are beginning to find interviews done by email as suspicious.
The cautionary lesson is to be certain you are corresponding with the person you think you are, only use email interviews when there is no other way to do them, and be explicit in your article as to the forum in which the interview was conducted.
© Pamela White, 2008
Want to use this article in your ezine or on your website? Feel free as long as you include the following:
About the author: Pamela White publishes Food Writing, the free ezine for food writers from her website: www.food-writing.com and The Writing Parent from www.thewritingparent.net . She develops writing and food writing courses, and her book, Make Money as a Food Writer in Six Lessons, is available at Amazon.com .
|