May
21
2007
The real revolution: print interviews can no longer be truncated or edited
Posted in the Category of Social Media and Stuff
I've been talking about this very phenomenon for a while now. Today there's an article by media columnist Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post titled: Don't Quote Me.
The point he makes is that executives often prefer to do an interview with a reporter by email these days. That's because the exec can post the *full* version of the exchange on her blog if the reporter edits or truncates the interview in a way she doesn't like.
GM lashed back at The New York Times' "ban on rubbish"
Remember this? In June 2006 GM's Brian Akre posted a rant to their FYI blog, protesting both a Tom Friedman column and The New York Times' refusal (or lack of cooperation) to publish GM's side of the story.
Useful Links
A revolution in corporate communications is coming your way soon
Trackback URL
Comments
Steven Lewis said on May 21, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Speaking as a former journalist, the email interview is great on the one hand because you often get good quotes and it saves you note taking. On the other hand, you don’t get to look the interviewee in the eye and get a sense of their veracity and it’s harder to press with follow-up questions.
Would we accept a national leader only answering questions in writing? Or someone in court proceedings never having to enter the witness box; instead only answering questions in an affadavit?
Also, even from the perspective of the interview, there’s the proven fact that half of all email is misunderstood. How is the CEO interviewee going to protect himself from the journalist misinterpreting tone, which could be more damaging.
My experience told me that those who complain about being “misquoted” usually said something injudicious and want to retract it.
-----