Mark Evans

Interviews 2.0?

A few days ago, Steve Rubel had a post on reinventing the media interview. He suggested a number of different approaches such as having reporters post their questions on the blogosphere, and allowing people/sources to respond. He also suggested bloggers use a Technorati tag to identify when they're replying to a reporter's question, or a “ping pong style approach” when journalists blog questions to specific sources who blog. While I can certainly appreciate Rubel's intentions, none of his proposals make sense. In fact, they seem to demonstrate a perplexing naivete about how the journalism business works. In particular, Rubel seems to forget journalists are, by nature, ultra-competitive. This means none of us wants to give a rival reporter the slightest sniff about what stories we're working on and who we're interviewing - whether it's a news story where a press release has been issued or a feature. When you work in an industry where you - and your boss - can easily measure your performance every day against the competition, you do everything you can to maintain an edge. For example, Mathew Ingram, a friend, blogger and fellow mesh organizer, and I engage in an odd professional “dance” when we get together because he writes about technology for the Globe & Mail while I work for the National Post. It's a difficult exercise sometimes because there's a lot happening, and who better to discuss the interesting companies, entrepreneurs and issues than someone who shares your enthusiasm?
   To be honest, Rubel's proposals demonstrate the ongoing divide between the PR and journalism worlds in how reporters do their jobs. Frankly, most PR practitioners have no clue about news organization's operate. You wouldn't believe the number of phone calls I receive during the heart of afternoon deadlines, or PR folks who call me to see if I received their earlier e-mail. Too many PR people are focused on pitching their clients rather than pitching stories that involve their clients - and the difference is enormous. To be fair, there are PR people who get it. Those are the ones who actually read your stories and get a feel for your interests, or those who see news happening and figure out an effective way for their clients to offer some perspective/comment. Going back to Rubel, he does make a valid point that a good chunk of most interviews don't appear in print or on air. This is where a reporter's blog could be used to provide things such as transcripts or podcasts of interviews.
Note: Mathew Ingram's take on Rubel's post can be found here, while a post from British journalist Ian Delaney, who shares my skeptical views on Rubel's suggestions, is here.