Journalists today can conduct interviews in many different ways, including over the phone or through e-mail.fizkes/iStockPhoto / Getty Images
Journalists may tap a huge range of sources when researching a single story, including court rulings, documents obtained through freedom of information requests, corporate reports and person-to-person interviews.
The latter, introduced some time in the mid-1800s, remains a mainstay of the newsgathering process. For those early reporters, there was only one way to get an interview: in person. Today, thanks to technology, interviews can be conducted in many other ways – on a video call, through e-mail or text, or on a private-messaging app that offers encryption for the protection of sensitive sources and information, such as Signal or WhatsApp.
E-mail and text are used a lot, especially for first contact, partly because just about everyone can be reached that way. A typed message can be sent at any time, from just about anywhere, and allows the prospective source a chance to consider the request, as well as how they might answer.
What happens when public figures sue news organizations?
As recently as the last decade, many journalists said they conducted interviews using e-mail only as a “last resort,” according to Poynter, a U.S. journalism non-profit. When Poynter checked again in 2022, the reporters declared the practice “invaluable” – with caveats.
Freelance journalist Luke Ottenhof told Poynter: “I think in general the industry looks down a bit on e-mail interviews but they can often allow for a lot more nuance and clarity. … Writing can allow for more patience and comfort, which can allow for sharper insights.”
Taking the opposite view, freelancer s.e. smith said, “people are less guarded in conversation than they are via e-mail, so you get really interesting, surprising and sometimes damning answers when you interview people verbally.”
If a key source is in high demand, an in-person interview may not be possible, especially on a tight deadline. “What do you do with the person who’s going public with the life-saving drug that’s going to make the world a better place, and maybe they don’t have time to go have coffee and sit down for a while?” said Lisa Taylor, a lawyer and associate professor of journalism at the University of King’s College, on a phone call from Halifax. An e-mail interview “may be helpful or just a necessary evil in that case.” (Disclosure: I taught as a sessional journalism instructor at Toronto Metropolitan University, then called Ryerson University, when Ms. Taylor was the associate chair and undergraduate program director.)
What newsrooms are doing to stay ahead of AI
In some situations, an e-mailed response may even be preferable – for example, if there’s a matter of public interest before the courts or a tribunal, or a case of medical malpractice or institutional abuse with witnesses who could help to tell the story.
“For journalists, quite often the impediment to getting those interviews with people who have real lived experience in an issue that matters is not the individual themselves, it’s their lawyer,” Ms. Taylor said. “And a lawyer’s risk management will almost always see them siding with, ‘Let’s not produce anything that could be inconsistent with anything else that was ever said, ever, by this person.’ ”
She continued: “Some lawyers will instead decide to sit in on an interview if they’re concerned about what is or isn’t said.” If the lawyer is inclined to interrupt the client repeatedly to steer the conversation, a carefully worded (and lawyered) e-mail response could be the better option.
In such a case, Ms. Taylor said, it is the journalist’s duty to let readers know how the interview was conducted. You’ll notice that The Globe and other reputable news organizations state in articles when information came from a written response or provided statement rather than in a voice-to-voice interview. That practice aligns with journalists’ ethical requirement for transparency.
For many practical reasons, including the possibility of having to defend their work, journalists must keep meticulous records; e-mail correspondence makes that task easier. Each message is a date-stamped record of a source’s responses.
“It’s helpful as long as the journalism is good,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, the use of e-mail or text alone isn’t a guarantee of protection against a complaint or a legal notice.
She argues that other interview formats can provide the same kind of reliable record-keeping. “Having a conversation with someone in person, over the phone, on a video call – these are all things that can be recorded. From there we can have transcripts generated.”
A real-time, voice-to-voice interview has its own advantages. It can provide insight into who the source is, and lead to details that help bring a story alive. “Part of talking to people is so we can see how they react, how they show up. … Where they hesitate, where they engage, try to shift the discussion. Where they live, how they exist in the world,” Ms. Taylor said.
An in-person interview also gives the source a chance to size up the reporter, and for the journalist to demonstrate they are trustworthy. This is important since, in this era of declining trust, sources are often hesitant to talk to journalists.
“Someone who’s willing to get out of their room to go see you, I think that does an awful lot to build trust and I think it also has the effect of telling someone that what they have to say matters.”