The Ethics and Etiquette of E-mail Interviews

By: Michael Bugeja Guest Opinion Column

To save time and increase productivity, many journalists are conducting interviews entirely by e-mail. But this technological time-saver jeopardizes:

* The authenticity of verbatim quotations. How can you be sure that a publicist for your source isn't sanitizing or inventing quotations sent via e-mail?

* The human-interest element of quotations. How can you cipher voice tone, inflection, and colloquialism, which e-mail routinely homogenizes?

* Spontaneous exchanges with sources. How can you build relationships with sources via e-mail or elicit from them off-the-record remarks?

That said, reporters may do e-mail interviews in certain situations and assignments, as long as they know the ethics and etiquette.

Some sources are elusive, especially when hounded by writers seeking specific information or verification of a fact or transaction. Reporters who try repeatedly to arrange an onsite or telephone session with an essential source might have to resort to an e-mail interview, even if they dislike using the medium.

"I don't think you should ever do an e-mail interview," says Justice Hill, senior writer at MLB.com, the official site of major league baseball. However, Hill acknowledges using e-mail to get specific information from Mark Shapiro, general manager of the Cleveland Indians. "First, though, I will have tried to call Mark and if I can't get to him, I know that his computer is always on," Hill says.

Curtis Danburg, manager of media relations for the Cleveland Indians, says e-mail is a good communication tool for reporters seeking interviews. "Sometimes if a writer wants one quote on something, he will shoot us an e-mail," he notes. "But as far as lengthy interviews we generally don't interact that way."

Reporters build relationships with sources by interviewing them face-to-face, Danburg adds. "The more you put yourself ... in front of a source the more trust will develop."

Trust is key, not only in getting good interviews but also in getting good tips. "In person reporters are dealing with a lot of 'off the record' stuff," Danburg says. "How do you put off-the-record information on an e-mail?"

Reporters may also want to do e-mail interviews for certain types of research and round-up stories. Generally if the topic being researched or documented is more important than the sources providing the information, an e-mail interview might be effective.

Ed Williams, a journalism professor at Auburn University in Alabama and adviser for The Plainsman, bans e-mail interviews in his classes and plans to add a statement about the ban to his writing syllabi. "E-mailing is not reporting," he says. However, even Williams acknowledges that e-mail can be useful when reporters are researching attitudes, practices, or other round-up related topics.

For instance, in his role as faculty adviser Williams posted a question asking how other universities selected editors for their student newspapers. He received many e-mail responses, compiled that information, and cited it when a reporter interviewed him about the topic.

E-mail might also be appropriately used for asking the source if a follow-up interview can be arranged via telephone or onsite, or noting use of e-mail responses in attributions.

E-mail should be especially prohibited in investigative work, even when researching, because sources can be tipped off and the reporter can lose an exclusive.

Before resorting to e-mail interviews, reporters should ask "Why?" If e-mail is being used for the reporter's or source's convenience, a telephone or face-to-face interview is more appropriate. Telephone interviews capture tone of a voice. Onsite interviews reveal a source's demeanor or surroundings so that the reporter can add an element of human interest or spontaneity to the story while enhancing the writing and building trust with the reader.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.