(AP / CBS)
He writes:
In the digital age, some executives and commentators are saying they will respond only by e-mail, which allows them to post the entire exchange if they feel they have been misrepresented, truncated or otherwise disrespected. And some go further, saying, You want to know what I think? Read my blog.
You might think this is taking things a bit too far, but it makes a lot of sense. When you're contacted by a reporter, you want to come across as more knowledgable than the next guy. And clever. Clever's very important. (And if you get really good, maybe Syracuse will give you your own department.)The crux of the problem is: After a few minutes talking to a reporter, two things can happen: (A) you get a little more relaxed, and (B) you don't want to repeat yourself, so you think of different ways to get your points across. You might think that sounds like the recipe for a Candor Cocktail, but actually it isn't. That's when you start to ad lib, and -- just like jazz musicians hit an occasional off-note -- this rhetorical riffing can sometimes be way off-key. And it's fair game for a mischievous reporter to toss such a comment in – particularly if it is more in line with the angle he or she is taking on the story in the first place.
What e-Interviews allow sources to do is add another level of reason and transparency to the news-gathering process. Firstly, you're far less likely to riff when you're sending off an e-mail. And secondly, if a reporter knows that everything is on paper -- well, e-paper -- there's much less chance he'll misquote you.
My $.02 would be that if you're being asked about how "The Sopranos" is winding up in its final weeks, or if you believe that interleague baseball games are a good thing … well, then, riff away by all means. But if you're talking about things like illegal immigration or foreign policy towards the Middle East, then start thinking about letting your fingers do the talking, so you don't walk off the plank.
"No Comment." Then Push Send.
/ CBS News
He writes:
You might think this is taking things a bit too far, but it makes a lot of sense. When you're contacted by a reporter, you want to come across as more knowledgable than the next guy. And clever. Clever's very important. (And if you get really good, maybe Syracuse will give you your own department.)The crux of the problem is: After a few minutes talking to a reporter, two things can happen: (A) you get a little more relaxed, and (B) you don't want to repeat yourself, so you think of different ways to get your points across. You might think that sounds like the recipe for a Candor Cocktail, but actually it isn't. That's when you start to ad lib, and -- just like jazz musicians hit an occasional off-note -- this rhetorical riffing can sometimes be way off-key. And it's fair game for a mischievous reporter to toss such a comment in – particularly if it is more in line with the angle he or she is taking on the story in the first place.
What e-Interviews allow sources to do is add another level of reason and transparency to the news-gathering process. Firstly, you're far less likely to riff when you're sending off an e-mail. And secondly, if a reporter knows that everything is on paper -- well, e-paper -- there's much less chance he'll misquote you.
My $.02 would be that if you're being asked about how "The Sopranos" is winding up in its final weeks, or if you believe that interleague baseball games are a good thing … well, then, riff away by all means. But if you're talking about things like illegal immigration or foreign policy towards the Middle East, then start thinking about letting your fingers do the talking, so you don't walk off the plank.