Your preference: Email interviews or phoners?
Clay Ziegler asked a dozen journalists about email interviews vs. phone interviews, and “all but one who responded did so in enthusiastic defense of the phone interview,” although “a couple worried about its future.”
What they told him:
Politico’s Jessica Meyers: “In Washington, you get people in person or you get them by email. There’s not much of a conversation where you call up and chat.”
Nevada Appeal editor Dennis Noone: “I find the phone to be the preferred method of communication … and I don’t say that because I’m an old-school dinosaur. The phone cuts to the chase better. It helps you get a read on people.”
Dallas Morning News breaking news editor Bruce Tomaso: The phone interview is “not dead, but not the vital tool it once was.” It is, he says, “entirely possible to do lucid interviews by email or Facebook.”
WFAA-TV investigative producer Jason Trahan: “Email interviews aren’t really interviews. They are efficient, but are limiting. The best interviews are those that include banter and asides which lead to more questions and ultimately better information imparted.”
ProPublica’s Michael Grabell: “Despite the sense that e-mail is more efficient, I find that e-mail interviews often take longer. The statement often doesn’t answer the question fully or raises follow-up questions. I’ve had rounds of this that have gone on for a week when it could have been resolved in an interview in one hour. I usually don’t want a statement. I want a conversation.”
Ziegler closes his piece telling readers that this was an experiment of sorts “that yielded some interesting findings.”
Do you recall that I reached out to a dozen journalists? Well, I made sure to contact three by phone and three through Twitter, Facebook or email.
Two of the three people I left phone messages with called me back the same day. They gave me the most colorful quotes. The fastest responses came with Twitter, and all three people to whom I sent direct messages responded on the same day. A few direct messages allowed for quick follow up, though there was that 140-character limit.
Just one of three of my Facebook friends responded, with a concise but brief answer. Two of the three people I emailed responded within a day. They may have given the most thoughtful responses, but in both cases there was an exchange to clarify my intent.
What’s your preferred way of conducting interviews? (What my Facebook friends say.)
* The phone interview lives, and why that’s a good thing (Ideagrove.com)
* Is the phone interview dead? (PRDaily.com)
Clay, what an interesting poll, and I’d love to see it go beyond a dozen journalists to see how that might change your findings.
My first preference: In person because I can see the expressions on the person’s face and get a sense of when he or she is stretching things, uncomfortable, etc. Not to mention, it’s harder to push someone out of an office or home than it is to hang up the phone.
Second preference: Phone. On deadline, phone interviews are often the best option. At least I can hear the tone of voice. I also agree with my former DMN colleague Michael Grabell that it’s much easier to ask follow-up questions by phone than email.
Email: Hate it and almost never use it. Why? It does come off sounding like a statement. You can’t do follow-up questions easily. It is a less authentic way of interviewing, too. My emails do not sound like the way I speak. People who have something to hide often want email interviews so they can control every bit of the conversation. I coach my journalism students to NOT DO email interviews. Some ignore that, and the quality of quotes and information generally suffers as a result.
I also think that email interviews are a bit lazy. The more journalists, particularly newer ones, can get out there and talk to people, the better.
Yup, I’m old school. I use email as a way to set up interviews – not for interviews.
Linda
(Formerly of The Boston Globe, The Dallas Morning News, The Orlando Sentinel, and a few other places. Still doing journalism.)
Agree with the above statement – in person is best, phone is pretty close (plus you can type your notes as you talk; try doing that in person) but email’s lack of easy follow-up makes it clunky and ineffective.
Texting/IM-ing is better than email, actually; it’s more spontaneous.
In-person interviews are really the best. And although phone interviews are efficient, they work better for stories where you’re dealing repeatedly with the same people, such as government officials, school board members or school administrators, and so on.
With all the emphasis on posting to the web, including photos and videos, you’d think in-person interviews where the reporter also got the photo would be the “new” old standard.
I always feel like I’m cheating a little when I do email interviews. Plus, it gives people a chance to give you a filtered thought. I prefer the phone because you get their real, unfiltered thoughts and, like it said above, you can get a better read on someone.