Comments on: More on email vs. phone http://www.wordyard.com/2007/04/27/more-email-phone/ Technology, politics, culture Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:11:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: angela penny http://www.wordyard.com/2007/04/27/more-email-phone/#comment-628 angela penny Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:13:08 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1271#comment-628 one more thing, the reason i ended up on Dave Winer's site is because of the thing he's doing pushing one story per minute from the New York Times to twitter. They seem like kind of random stories, but i guess it's hard to find one new story per minute. one more thing, the reason i ended up on Dave Winer’s site is because of the thing he’s doing pushing one story per minute from the New York Times to twitter. They seem like kind of random stories, but i guess it’s hard to find one new story per minute.

]]> By: John http://www.wordyard.com/2007/04/27/more-email-phone/#comment-627 John Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:00 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1271#comment-627 Scott, thanks for the response. I agree that perhaps a hybrid, where reporters glean what they feel they need from an interview for a story but then also post the entire interview elsewhere, if possible, is in the offing. On your point about the modifier "great" negating my point about filtering, regardless of the talent of the reporter, most people read a paper or a web site or watch a newscast because they want a summary of what happened. If they had unlimited time, they might go directly to the source, but few people have that luxury. So, they look to journalists to hit the high points. Some are better than others at this, of course, and perhaps I'm s naive to expect that the market will take care of this as people choose to look elsewhere for news when their primary sources fall short. Lastly, I think actual spoken conversations are always better if you're trying to pull someone off their scripted comments. As a reporter yourself, surely you know the value of letting silence do the work for you. Few people can resist filling gaps in conversation, and that's often when you get your best, most candid comments. I've yet to experience its equivalent in an e-mail interview. Scott, thanks for the response. I agree that perhaps a hybrid, where reporters glean what they feel they need from an interview for a story but then also post the entire interview elsewhere, if possible, is in the offing.

On your point about the modifier “great” negating my point about filtering, regardless of the talent of the reporter, most people read a paper or a web site or watch a newscast because they want a summary of what happened. If they had unlimited time, they might go directly to the source, but few people have that luxury. So, they look to journalists to hit the high points. Some are better than others at this, of course, and perhaps I’m s naive to expect that the market will take care of this as people choose to look elsewhere for news when their primary sources fall short.

Lastly, I think actual spoken conversations are always better if you’re trying to pull someone off their scripted comments. As a reporter yourself, surely you know the value of letting silence do the work for you. Few people can resist filling gaps in conversation, and that’s often when you get your best, most candid comments. I’ve yet to experience its equivalent in an e-mail interview.

]]>