Comments on: Talk to Me http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:39:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Phil http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-9119 Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:01:14 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-9119 I think people blog for pretty much the same reasons other folks become journalists, with the main one being that they care about what happens in the world. A blogger can write as much as he chooses, while a journalist's space is limited, so it is understandable that the journalist (and his editors!) would distill the information he gleans. Were I a journalist, knowing that my take on any given story may not be the only valid one, I would organize my email conversations, interview transcripts, and other research from the story, post the relevant parts online, and put the link to this data in the story for those who want greater detail. In much the same way, bloggers include relevant links in their writings. I can empathize with folks who don't want to be interviewed in person. I am king of the Foot-In-Mouth people, and when I am discussing an idea or issue, I don't want my awkwardness to eclipse my ideas. I struggle with the wording of posts I make (I don't get interviewed!), editing and re-editing every phrase, re-arranging sentences, and deleting paragraphs. It's even worse in person, with every thought bringing up multiple possible tangents, each being a Path of No Return. In a word, I blither, and I make an easy target. I may struggle when writing, but the idea has a better chance of being transmitted. That said, if one really cares about something, he should be willing to endure discomfort for the sake of its advance. Truth is nobody's exclusive province; even clods and monsters are right some of the time, and if U really care about something, U should take the risk of an interview. I think people blog for pretty much the same reasons other folks become journalists, with the main one being that they care about what happens in the world. A blogger can write as much as he chooses, while a journalist’s space is limited, so it is understandable that the journalist (and his editors!) would distill the information he gleans. Were I a journalist, knowing that my take on any given story may not be the only valid one, I would organize my email conversations, interview transcripts, and other research from the story, post the relevant parts online, and put the link to this data in the story for those who want greater detail. In much the same way, bloggers include relevant links in their writings.

I can empathize with folks who don’t want to be interviewed in person. I am king of the Foot-In-Mouth people, and when I am discussing an idea or issue, I don’t want my awkwardness to eclipse my ideas. I struggle with the wording of posts I make (I don’t get interviewed!), editing and re-editing every phrase, re-arranging sentences, and deleting paragraphs. It’s even worse in person, with every thought bringing up multiple possible tangents, each being a Path of No Return. In a word, I blither, and I make an easy target. I may struggle when writing, but the idea has a better chance of being transmitted. That said, if one really cares about something, he should be willing to endure discomfort for the sake of its advance. Truth is nobody’s exclusive province; even clods and monsters are right some of the time, and if U really care about something, U should take the risk of an interview.

]]> by: Susan Getgood http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-8034 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:31:28 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-8034 Sure, sometimes reporters get it wrong, which is why many interviewees like the email form. They feel more in control of their words. Which of course they are. But there is a certain irony here. We are talking about social media and bloggers and a communications revolution, but we don't want to have an actual real-time conversation with a reporter? In one breath, we say to big major corporation that it is all about realizing that you have no control, that the customer is in charge, etc. etc. And in the next, we want to do interviews by email so we have more control? Walk the talk. If you are worried about being misquoted or misrepresented, tape the interview yourself. Sure, sometimes reporters get it wrong, which is why many interviewees like the email form. They feel more in control of their words. Which of course they are.

But there is a certain irony here. We are talking about social media and bloggers and a communications revolution, but we don’t want to have an actual real-time conversation with a reporter?

In one breath, we say to big major corporation that it is all about realizing that you have no control, that the customer is in charge, etc. etc. And in the next, we want to do interviews by email so we have more control?

Walk the talk. If you are worried about being misquoted or misrepresented, tape the interview yourself.

]]> by: malren http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-8002 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:23:52 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-8002 I was just interviewed by phone, and the reporter, while nice and attempting to be fair, wrote dozens of words and phrases I never said in his final piece. Meanwhile his follow-up question came via email, and I responded that way. Lo and behold it's the ONLY part of the interview that is accurately represented. Reporters need to STOP paraphrasing, then people won't be so inclined to want a record they can use as proof of what they said at a later date. Seems to me that with this position you've taken, you're just trying to protect reporters from having to be accurate. I was just interviewed by phone, and the reporter, while nice and attempting to be fair, wrote dozens of words and phrases I never said in his final piece. Meanwhile his follow-up question came via email, and I responded that way. Lo and behold it’s the ONLY part of the interview that is accurately represented.

Reporters need to STOP paraphrasing, then people won’t be so inclined to want a record they can use as proof of what they said at a later date. Seems to me that with this position you’ve taken, you’re just trying to protect reporters from having to be accurate.

]]> by: Jeff Jarvis http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-7999 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:50:22 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/06/10/talk-to-me/#comment-7999 Well said, Steven. And I've certainly had my say on blog, as you've pointed out. I think we fundamentally disagree that an email interview must be inferior to a phone interview. I think it can, in many or most cases, be superior -- more thought out, more informative, more accurate -- and there is now the bonus benefit of being able to point to all quotes in context. No one but no one is saying that most people want to read pages of transcripts; it is still your role to assimilate and analyze and distill and edit. But for those who want more and in cases of dispute, the written record is unquestionably valuable. I did say that when we talked, only now I can't point to it because we talked on the phone. Well said, Steven. And I’ve certainly had my say on blog, as you’ve pointed out. I think we fundamentally disagree that an email interview must be inferior to a phone interview. I think it can, in many or most cases, be superior — more thought out, more informative, more accurate — and there is now the bonus benefit of being able to point to all quotes in context. No one but no one is saying that most people want to read pages of transcripts; it is still your role to assimilate and analyze and distill and edit. But for those who want more and in cases of dispute, the written record is unquestionably valuable. I did say that when we talked, only now I can’t point to it because we talked on the phone.

]]>