An interview with a newsmaker, subject matter expert, corporate executive or anyone else benefits a journalist in two ways. First you get the interview and can use it for one or more articles right away. Second, it provides you with a resource for future articles. If you keep good records, over time, you'll develop your own Rolodex of database of experts and newsmakers that you can contact to comment on relevant news stories.
For example, I interviewed the Polling Director at the University of New Hampshire for a story on GOP infighting in New Hampshire during the 2010 election season. He, of course, is an expert on polling methodologies, politics (national and local), and political history. At the conclusion of the interview, I made sure I had all his preferred contact information and he invited me to call him for a comment anytime. So, every time there's a primary, debate, election, or other political development (a President receives a public approval polling bump after a notorious terrorist is killed, for example), I have a source who can provide an expert opinion and who is just a phone call away.
One advantage of using these types of contacts for comments is that your article will have 100% original and newsworthy content that isn't found anywhere else on the web or in print. Another is that you automatically have original and possibly local (if your source is local to your region) angles for almost any national news event once you have a good selection of sources in your file. This should translate into higher upfront payments (at places like Yahoo! Contributor Network), more opportunities, and more incoming links to your articles, from top bloggers and from other well-ranked news sites.
Ideally, you'll have multiple sources for each news category or topic. That offers you the ability to have different viewpoints on the same topic or lets you highlight the fact that multiple experts agree. Multiple original sources within an article give your article much stronger credibility and authority.
Once you've collected many sources, however, you may have trouble remember who is who and what they know. I use a Rolodex-like system of paper cards. OK, I admit that I'm old-fashioned. An electronic database would probably work as well, but I find the paper system faster as it doesn't require me to spend time opening the program or worrying about overtaxing my poor overworked laptop CPU.
A database, however, offers you the ability to search multiple fields which is a major aid in finding topic matter experts. To mimic this in my Rolodex system, I file each contact on two or more cards. One is a standard contact card, filed alphabetically by the contact's name (or company, if that is more relevant). The other is like a library's subject matter files. I file it under the particular topic or topics of expertise for the contact. So a subject matter card might look like this:
Politics (national, NH, polls, history)
Contact name
Official title (such as director of the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center and an associate professor of political science)
Preferred method of contact
telephone number(s)
Preferred time to call
email address
Notes: political leanings (if any and if relevant), areas of particular interest, personality notes (likes to be addressed formally as Dr. so-and-so, for example), any other information that will make the interview smoother or more informative. (Has a brother living in Cairo, Egypt who is a political activist there, for example). Requests a link to articles post-publication.
Author of: List Book Titles and Publication Dates
List of previous contacts: This is a list of everytime I've contacted this individual which includes the date of the contact, method (telephone, email, etc), resulting article title(s).
This last bit lets me know whether I am bothering someone too much or under-utilizing a resource. It also allows me review what I've already discussed with this person so I can ask questions like: "In the September of 2010, you said that you thought any sitting president with a disapproval rating greater than 46% might be expected to face challengers in his own party's primary, citing the Kennedy candidacy of 1980, as an example. In your opinion why hasn't such opposition emerged this year?" It also reminds me whether the interview was amicable or hostile, so I know what to expect going in for any future calls.
So that card would be filed under "P" for politics, but would also be duplicated with the contact's name as the first entry and filed that was as well. With this system, I can quickly find a particular individual or I can pull out a list of political or other subject matter experts from which to choose. A database would have searchable fields for area(s) of expertise. Notes fields might be keyword searchable as well. Some might allow active links to the prior articles in which the source was used.
Whatever system you use, keep excellent records of your contacts and sources. They can be used over and over again. That said, you must be prudent in your use of a contact. Most will certainly not want to be contacted every day to respond to Rush Limbaugh's latest rant. Use them when appropriate, but don't wear out your welcome by calling them too often of for trivial or unrelated matters. What is too often? That will depend upon the individual and you'll have to get a feel for each person.
Establishing a Personal Connection
Ideally, you want to develop a personal relationship with each contact so they feel comfortable talking with you. This will allow a more candid conversation during interviews and may result in them actually contacting you when they have something they consider newsworthy. You should definitely make clear to each contact that you would like them to contact you when they have news they think should be heard. There's nothing better than a good story showing up in your inbox unsolicited. If you have a good relationship with your sources you can occasionaly even just call and ask them "What's news?" in their area of expertise and get an impromtu interview and story idea, but don't overuse this technique or use it before you have a comfortable realtionship with the individual or you might scare them off.
The Ettiquette of Interviews
Which brings us to the matter of etiquette. Very few people want to talk openly with, or be helpful to, someone they don't like. Always be polite and professional with your interview sources. Even if the interview is adversarial in nature (they are being misleading or uncooperative), be polite and professional, and act just as if they were cooperating (although, your questions should still dig into the matter and try to reveal the truth), your tone and behavior should not show anger or be insulting or accusatory in any way.
If they are saying something you suspect is false, then confusion while showing you have a knowledge of the topic and can't be (easily) fooled is appropriate: "I'm not sure I understand how you draw that conclusion... The budget, as written and as the President signed it, actually contains a net tax reduction averaging $1150 for each household with income under $250,000 annually, a number which includes 93% of American families, yet you say that he has increased taxes for the average American. How do you support that statement?" That's an appropriate and professional question that will be helpful to your readers, while "You're wrong, the President's budget decreases taxes...." or any accusatory words or tone is generally inappropriate (with a very few exceptions which I may discuss at a later date). It is an even worse sin, by the way, to accept and print as truth an interviewee's statement that you know to be false without challenging it or providing counter-evidence to the reader.
Aside from a solid command of the language, a good list of reliable sources is a journalist's most valuable tool. Cultivate your sources carefully and they will provide a bountiful yield.
No comments:
Post a Comment