Today American Journalism Review published a pretty good article by Kim Hart, “Inbox Journalism.” (Incidentally, I liked it for more reasons than because I’m quoted in it.)
In this article, Hart explores attitudes toward e-mail interviews among journalists, editors, and journalism educators. While many of my journalism colleagues still harbor a fair amount of resistance to e-mail interviews, I think the anecdote that leads Hart’s article demonstrates the value of e-mail not just for getting quotes, but for building relationships with sources.
Here’s my take on e-mail interviews…
- E-mail is just a tool. Like any communication tool, it can be used well, misused thoughtlessly, or abused heinously by senders or recipients. I can’t think of a single communication tool that does not have potentially valid applications to journalism. Therefore, I see no reason for blanket prohibitions of e-mail interviews.
- Text is not necessarily sterile. Some people communicate more clearly and vibrantly through writing. In fact, some of the best quotes I’ve ever gotten from sources have come via e-mail. It just depends on the source. Some sources have told me they feel less pressured in an e-mail interview, so their thoughts flow more easily. In contrast, other people get unbearably stiff when they write, or they have their lawyers or PR staff approve responses before they get sent. It all depends. However, in my book, more options is always better.
- Don’t rely on e-mail on deadline. Too much can go wrong. Not only might your source not see your message and respond in time, but a myriad of technical glitches can cause your message (or their response) to disappear into the digital void. So don’t write “So-and-so did not respond to our requests for comment” unless you’ve tried to call or visit that source.
- Call later to fact-check if needed. If you get important information or quotes via e-mail from a crucial source on a touchy story, there’s no reason why you can’t call or meet with that source later to verify that they did indeed send that stuff to you in the first place. Now, this might not always be the most efficient approach; but then, you can’t always control how sources choose to contact you.
- Links and enclosures are great. One reason why I like using e-mail to interact with sources is that e-mail offers the option of transmitting links and attaching files. Many times this has saved me considerable research time.
- E-mail cuts both ways. When you interact with sources via e-mail (or instant messaging, for that matter) that gives both sides a specific transcript of what transpired between you. So if you asked a vague or leading question, or quoted out of context, it can more easily come back to haunt you from an e-mail interaction.
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds
BlogoSquare
8 Comments so far (Add 1 more)