Generally, when I write up Q-and-A interviews for Yahoo!, I start with an introduction and then leap into the interview itself, letting that stand for itself. With my latest, however, I tried a different approach and included a conclusion section where I offered my interpretation of the main points of the interview. I think I'll use this format more often. To me, it seems to put a bow on it, as it were, or finish the article more elegantly from a stylistic perspective. It also gives me a chance to either rebut, clarify or elaborate on anything the speaker may have said during the interview.
Here's the article, based upon an interview with Dr. Ronald Fischer of the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, which was originally titled: Study reveals keys to happiness (which I still like better than the one that Yahoo! substituted, although they did ask permission first, so I no have right to complain...) I am curious, though, which title do you think is better and why?
Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Respect for the interviewee
Generally, when I conduct an interview, I send a link to the finished work to the subject of the interview. Often, however, they will ask to see the work before it is published in order to "correct any mis-statements they may have made." I always acquiesce to these requests to see the content before it is published and to date, no one has had any real issues with the content. I don't always include the title. In this article, though, I did include a title, the one that is on the article now. When I submitted it for publication on Yahoo! News, my editor requested that I change the title. So, it was published with a title different than the one now show. It was accurate and truthful, but could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. One of which was somewhat controversial.
The subject of the interview, wrote me back and strongly objected to the new title which was included in the URL, as well. He objected so strongly that he said he would withdraw permission to use his comments if it were not changed. While it might not be a legally defensible threat, I like to maintain good relations with my contacts, especially when the request to change the title did not reduce the integrity of the article itself.
I contacted my editor and explained the situation. He was able to immediately change the title, and request that the article be taken down from Yahoo! as this was the only way to eliminate the disputed title from the URL. Meanwhile, the article was added to Y!CN under the new title. Once the original was purged from Yahoo!'s cache, it was resubmitted and published at Yahoo! News.
In all it took more than a day and a number of back and forth communications to get everything changed and page views on the original submission were permanently wiped from the system. I felt that changing the title was important as an act of courtesy to someone who had granted me an hour of his time. My relationship and open line of communication with the responsible editor at Y!CN was also instrumental in my ability to accomplish this change.
While the disputed title was factually accurate, would not be considered offensive, and could have been left as is, I felt that changing it was the right thing to do to ease the anxiety my interview subject had. If i had included the disputed title in the prepublication draft I send to him and he had not objected at the time, I might have made a less-strenuous attempt to make the change. If the interviewee simply had second thoughts about what they clearly said during the interview such that it changed the character of the discussion, it would also be a different case.
Think of the example of Newt Gingrich criticizing the Paul Ryan budget, for example. If he had said what he said in the interview and then asked the interviewer to omit those remarks before they were published or televised, I think it would be disingenuous of the interviewer as a journalist to edit the discussion to change its original character. It would be fine to include a note that Gingrich later said he didn't really mean what he said or that he meant to say he supports Ryan's budget, but pretending that it never happened is misleading to the reader or television audience in my opinion. In a case like that, I would have to stand my ground.
In the case of the title change I made on the above-referenced article however, there was no change to the character or content of the original interview, so there was really no reason for me to object to the request.
When we interview people and quote them directly, we have an obligation to represent their words and tone accurately, and, where possible within the limits of our own journalistic integrity, to protect them against threats, real or perceived, to their professional and personal integrity.
The subject of the interview, wrote me back and strongly objected to the new title which was included in the URL, as well. He objected so strongly that he said he would withdraw permission to use his comments if it were not changed. While it might not be a legally defensible threat, I like to maintain good relations with my contacts, especially when the request to change the title did not reduce the integrity of the article itself.
I contacted my editor and explained the situation. He was able to immediately change the title, and request that the article be taken down from Yahoo! as this was the only way to eliminate the disputed title from the URL. Meanwhile, the article was added to Y!CN under the new title. Once the original was purged from Yahoo!'s cache, it was resubmitted and published at Yahoo! News.
In all it took more than a day and a number of back and forth communications to get everything changed and page views on the original submission were permanently wiped from the system. I felt that changing the title was important as an act of courtesy to someone who had granted me an hour of his time. My relationship and open line of communication with the responsible editor at Y!CN was also instrumental in my ability to accomplish this change.
While the disputed title was factually accurate, would not be considered offensive, and could have been left as is, I felt that changing it was the right thing to do to ease the anxiety my interview subject had. If i had included the disputed title in the prepublication draft I send to him and he had not objected at the time, I might have made a less-strenuous attempt to make the change. If the interviewee simply had second thoughts about what they clearly said during the interview such that it changed the character of the discussion, it would also be a different case.
Think of the example of Newt Gingrich criticizing the Paul Ryan budget, for example. If he had said what he said in the interview and then asked the interviewer to omit those remarks before they were published or televised, I think it would be disingenuous of the interviewer as a journalist to edit the discussion to change its original character. It would be fine to include a note that Gingrich later said he didn't really mean what he said or that he meant to say he supports Ryan's budget, but pretending that it never happened is misleading to the reader or television audience in my opinion. In a case like that, I would have to stand my ground.
In the case of the title change I made on the above-referenced article however, there was no change to the character or content of the original interview, so there was really no reason for me to object to the request.
When we interview people and quote them directly, we have an obligation to represent their words and tone accurately, and, where possible within the limits of our own journalistic integrity, to protect them against threats, real or perceived, to their professional and personal integrity.
Friday, May 20, 2011
How easy are interviews to write?
Some people think that writing interview articles is easier than other types since you are relying on someone else's words and just transcribing them. I strongly disagree.
In the first place, the interviewer must identify a relevant expert, contact him and set up an interview in time to make sure the topic is still newsworthy or timely. Some of the experts are getting calls from many media sources for interviews and they often have work schedules that permit only a small window of available time.
Secondly, preparation for an interview is at least equal to the research for any article. The interviewer must research the topic of the interview, the expert's previous statements and writings pertaining to the interview topic, and research some opposing views and factual information about the topic in order to have an intelligent discussion with the interviewee.
Questions should be prepared in advance, but the interviewer should be willing and even eager to go off the beaten path if the person being interviewed mentions or hints at something that seems interesting.
You are more likley to get in-depth and candid dialogue from the interviewee if you are engaged in a real conversation rather than running through a list of predetermined questions. The more in-depth your advanced research is, the better-equipped you will be to convey a genuine interest in the topic, recognize intriguing opportunities as they develop within the interview, and draw the interviewee out if she doesn't initially provide enough detail.
Finally, once you have the interview, the editing process can be quite time-consuming as well. I'll often talk with a subject for 30-45 minutes. During that time, there are pages and pages of directly transcribed notes. To make that ready for publication, I need to very carefully edit each response in such a way as to accurately capture the tone,context, and main content of the reply. It is important to represent the interviewee and their statements accurately while trimming them down to the bare essentials.
Trimming too much, however, can lead to the danger of stripping out the emotional content of the interview. The article should give the reader all the passion the interviewee feels about the topic and a glimpse of their personality without getting sidetracked.
All in all, I spend far more time on interview articles than I do on anything else I write of similar length. They also tend to be the articles in which I learn the most and I hope that learning passes through to the reader as well.
In the first place, the interviewer must identify a relevant expert, contact him and set up an interview in time to make sure the topic is still newsworthy or timely. Some of the experts are getting calls from many media sources for interviews and they often have work schedules that permit only a small window of available time.
Secondly, preparation for an interview is at least equal to the research for any article. The interviewer must research the topic of the interview, the expert's previous statements and writings pertaining to the interview topic, and research some opposing views and factual information about the topic in order to have an intelligent discussion with the interviewee.
Questions should be prepared in advance, but the interviewer should be willing and even eager to go off the beaten path if the person being interviewed mentions or hints at something that seems interesting.
You are more likley to get in-depth and candid dialogue from the interviewee if you are engaged in a real conversation rather than running through a list of predetermined questions. The more in-depth your advanced research is, the better-equipped you will be to convey a genuine interest in the topic, recognize intriguing opportunities as they develop within the interview, and draw the interviewee out if she doesn't initially provide enough detail.
Finally, once you have the interview, the editing process can be quite time-consuming as well. I'll often talk with a subject for 30-45 minutes. During that time, there are pages and pages of directly transcribed notes. To make that ready for publication, I need to very carefully edit each response in such a way as to accurately capture the tone,context, and main content of the reply. It is important to represent the interviewee and their statements accurately while trimming them down to the bare essentials.
Trimming too much, however, can lead to the danger of stripping out the emotional content of the interview. The article should give the reader all the passion the interviewee feels about the topic and a glimpse of their personality without getting sidetracked.
All in all, I spend far more time on interview articles than I do on anything else I write of similar length. They also tend to be the articles in which I learn the most and I hope that learning passes through to the reader as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)