You & Your Source: Different Interview Perspectives

PR Daily is good at asking questions, and How far should you stretch in an interview? is a good question.

In the case of this particular question, author Brad Phillips concludes that there's no right or wrong answer. I beg to differ.

As a writer, I've been on the deadline end of the wrong answer, and it stinks (to put it politely).

On Being a Good Source 

My answer to would-be sources is this: don't stretch for an interview unless you're really, r e a l l y going to stretch and actually become a good source.

Trust me, a prompt, professional response that you're not able to authoritatively address the specific aspects of the assigned topic will be appreciated.

Do you worry because you "hate to turn down a media opportunity?" Don't. Generally, a prompt, professional response of any kind will be enough to get you on the list of "people to call" for future assignments on any related topic.

As a source, the second-worst thing you can do is stretch a little. If you stretch enough to talk around the topic, but are unable to offer any real insight into the topic, you've wasted not only the writer's time but the readers' time as well.

The Worst Source

In my opinion - as a writer and a reader - the worst thing a source can do has nothing to do with stretching. It has to do with bending.

Sources who bend, twist, or turn their responses, or who stray so far from the topic that their comments are useful only to themselves and/or their brand, are the worst... when you're prepared, that is.

Sometimes - rarely, but sometimes - a "bad" source can, like a lost sheep, be worth following. The trick is knowing when.

Don't Get Lost, Get Lucky

Following a wayward source is worthwhile when you have enough time to appreciate the detour as part of the education process. Managing your work so that you can have "enough time" is a challenge every writer knows too well - and most know it depends on having a lot of discipline and even more luck.

To increase your chances (I'm talking to writers now, you source-types are free to leave) I've found it helps to identify potential sources as early as possible in your research phase. I've lucked out a few times by contacting those potential sources before I understood the topic well. In those cases, I suspect my totally honest approach improved my luck.

Contacting Sources Too Early Can Work

When contacting potential sources before I've had a chance to develop good questions, I say something like, "I'm researching X topic and would like 10-15 minutes of your time while I begin to understand how Y and Z are affecting X. Before you agree I should tell you this interview would be considered background only - in other words, no attributable quotes at this time. If you're willing to speak to me, please call..."

Obviously, when using this approach it helps to cast a wide net (or look for a lot of sheep). And it helps to have a long lead time - something almost always out of your control as a writer.

What is under your control as a writer, and what you must remember during the interview and writing process, is that you and your sources approach the interview from completely different perspectives. Put another way: as long as you understand that the question How far should you stretch in an interview? is one sources must routinely consider, it's probably unlikely that you'll be led too far astray.

~Diane Stresing

Excellent Examples: blogging and interviewing

In this case, I really think the headline says it all - but what the heck, I'll say some more:

If you're interviewing, blogging, or interviewing for the sake of blogging, do consider the excellent examples of Copyblogger. And if you're looking for a writer with loads of creativity (and marketability)  I highly recommend looking at Austin Kleon.

Bye Bye Blogs, So Long to Standards?

Today I read that blogs are passe, dead, a waste of time. When the question is, how can I get readers? apparently, the answer is Twitter. Hm.

I can digg (in fact, I really Digg it!) but I'm not ready to tweet.

Assuming there's some momentum and truth (or real worth) to back up the tweeting on Twitter, and Digg lasts longer than most of my web-crushes, then (you know what's coming) what does it mean for writers? and for writing?

I'm not sure, beyond the fact that it's acceptable to start a sentence like the one above with a lowercase "a."
- - - - - - - - - -

I believe writers are really, really important in any civilized society. Seriously. And not just the legal specialists who write the plethora of contracts, disclaimers, and warranties.

But it's been a long day.
- - - - - - - - - -

I spent part of it on a conference call with about a dozen eager writers who were, I was led to believe, all ready to jump at the chance to write for the website of a "major brand" in the medical space for ... ready? $70 per article. The articles should take about two hours to complete, we were told. (I suspect more like five.) Writers on the project are instructed to conduct one interview and use it to create 5+ articles on a given topic. And/or to source quotes from the host website - with attribution to the folks previously quoted on the host website.

Is anyone besides me nauseous at this point?

If we, the professional writers, are to repurpose and essentially regurgitate the same material, the same quotes, over and over and (I really HATE this part) reuse OTHER writers' material (even from "approved" websites - in this case, a partner site, but one with separate ownership and a separate staff of writers) how long will it be before what we read has no meaning?

Not very long, my friends; webspeed is roughly equivalent to the speed of light.

And the ugly twist in the wild-web-world is that while we can crank out "new" material with a few keystrokes and cut-and-paste commands, it's damn near impossible to to determine the relative age, or accuracy, of anything we read.

What if I repurpose a quote from a doc who was an expert in his field last year but who recently was indicted for having sex with his patients, prescribing drugs based on kickbacks, fiddling with research results to further his career at the big-name clinic?

I won't know and readers won't know, if I didn't do the interviews firsthand.

So for $70 you can get a pithy article on pinkeye, and say "goodbye" to journalistic standards.

That's a very costly mistake.

I'll admit that news of the death of the blog may be grossly exaggerated, and not at all related to the demise of journalism, however, there's a lesson to be learned in both.

I think it's this: While you don't always get what you pay for, even more often, when the price tag is low so is the quality.

In the case of the $70 medical article, you, dear reader, don't know if you're getting the story straight from the horse's mouth, even if the horse is quoted and the website looks like a thoroughbred.

Caveat emptor, dear readers. Writers, good luck. And fact-checkers, raise your rates. I hope you'll soon be in great demand.