MSNBC.com
How Blogs Are Changing Modern Journalism
By Steven Levy
June 11, 2007 issue - When Wired magazine writer Fred Vogelstein set out to write a story about a Silicon Valley blogger, Mike Arrington, he figured he would do what virtually every professional journalist does—interview key people, either face to face or by telephone. It's the acid-tested methodology of reporters everywhere. But in this case, simply by making the request that newspaper and magazine scribes make thousands of times a day, Vogelstein found himself in the middle of a controversy that's challenging the utility, the accuracy and the very morality of the real-time interview.
Here is what happened to Vogelstein when he sought his interviews. First, blog entrepreneur Jason Calacanis told him he would not speak to him, but answer questions only by e-mail, something Vogelstein wouldn't agree to. Then, blogging pioneer Dave Winer told him he would not be interviewed by phone. He suggested that Vogelstein e-mail questions that he would then answer publicly on his blog, a solution for which Vogelstein had even less enthusiasm.
These rejections should have been no big whoop—journalists get turned down all the time. But in this case, both Calacanis and Winer trumpeted their turndowns on their well-read blogs. Apparently they hit a nerve, because the issue redounded all over the blogosphere. The main subject of the story, Arrington, lamented on his blog that the Wired story was blown and would probably be killed. Soon no less than The Washington Post (the parent company of NEWSWEEK) was using the case to examine the dynamics of the journalistic interview in the user-generated 21st century.
What are the bloggers complaining about? As Calacanis wrote to Vogelstein, "I don't want someone taking half a sentence or paraphrasing me ... Just too much risk." Neither Winer nor Calacanis is unaware of the value of a live conversation. But in their experience, that spontaneity is frequently abused to collect "gotcha" quotes that don't really reflect the subject's views.
Such complaints aren't new. The twist is that the Internet has altered the relationship. Blogger and NYU professor Jay Rosen says interviews have been an exercise in unequal power between the writer and the submissive subject. But with blogs the subject has a direct channel to the public. "The interviewer used to be in charge, but that's no longer the case," says media blogger Jeff Jarvis. "I can decide how long the quote is, I can make sure the context is accurate."
All this can be unnerving to someone (like, um, me) who has spent a career conversing with people on the other end of the phone line or lunch table. A live interview allows me not only to follow up quickly but to sense the verbal cues that direct me to more fruitful topics. In e-mail, people talk at you; in conversation I can talk with subjects, and a casual remark can lead to a level of discussion that neither party anticipated from the beginning. I am more likely to learn from someone in a conversation than in an e-mail exchange, which simply does not allow for the serendipity, intensity and give-and-take of real-time interaction.
We in the journalism tribe operate under the belief that when we ask people to talk to us we are not acting out of self-interest but a sense of duty to inform the population. It's an article of our faith that when subjects speak to us, they are engaging in a grand participatory act where everyone benefits. But these lofty views don't impress bloggers like Rosen. "You have to prove [you represent the public]," he says. Yes, we do. But every time we lose the priceless knowledge from those essential, real-time interviews, our stories are impoverished, to the detriment of our readers: you.
