When Vogelstein sought his interviews, blog entrepreneur Jason Calacanis told him he would answer questions only by e-mail, something Vogelstein wouldn’t agree to. Then, blogging pioneer Dave Winer 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. 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.” In their experience, live conversation is often abused to collect “gotcha” quotes that don’t reflect the subject’s views.
Such complaints aren’t new, but 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. With blogs, the subject has a direct channel to the public.
All this can be unnerving to someone (like, um, me) who has spent a career conversing with people. In e-mail, people talk at you; in conversation, I can talk with subjects, and a casual remark can lead to a discussion that neither party anticipated. I am more likely to learn from someone in a conversation than in an e-mail exchange, which does not allow for real-time give-and-take.
We journalists 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 public. But these views don’t impress bloggers like Rosen. “You have to prove [you represent the public],” he says. Yes, we do. But when we lose priceless knowledge from real-time interviews, our stories are impoverished, to the detriment of our readers: you.
