Ugh: The Email Interview

So, Jason Calacanis is sparring with Wired today because Wired-reporter Fred Vogelstein refused to do an interview by email. At first glance, this might look like a silly, self-serving spat. Perhaps it is. But there's something else at play here -- the emergence of email as a medium for interviews.

Calacanis argues that email promotes transparency -- too many "journos" (hate that word) take liberty with quotations, and email creates a permanent record of the interview. But before we jump to the conclusion that newsmakers (versus news orgs) have the upper hand in this contest, allow me to point out that there are a number of journalists who are forcing email and other digital tools on their subjects. Not too long ago, Owen Thomas at Business 2.0 insisted (politely) that I ask one of my clients to do an interview by IM. I didn't ask why -- I was pretty sure I knew what this was about -- but I did explain that the medium was a bit weird for my client. He wasn't wrong to ask. But the lesson was important: email and IM may be more transparent than other media. But they aren't always acceptable. Social norms rule.

Comments

[Brad Linder]

It's about more than just social norms.

An series of questions sent over email isn't an interview. It's a Q&A. The subject has time to prepare answers, might even go look up answers or ask friends to consult on the answers. And the interviewer doesn't get a chance to ask follow-up questions in realtime. "What do you mean by that?" "Would you care to elaborate?" and "Why?" are left out of the conversation entirely.

I'm not certain that email leads to fewer misunderstandings or misquotes. In some situations, it could lead to more. On the phone, or in a face to face interview if I'm talking to someone and I misunderstand what they're saying, they'll probably notice and set me straight. This doesn't happen in email because there's no real-time feedback.

Instant messaging lacks tone of voice and facial expressions, but at least it's real time(ish).

I think the ultimate solution is probably what Vogelstein and Calacanis eventually agreed on. They'll do the interview, and Vogelstein will tape it and send Calacanis an MP3 which he will include in his podcast.

While this particular story about Web 2.0 might not warrant the level of discussion taking place on the internet right now, I'd like to see more of this kind of transparency in reporting.