For the 10 seconds my congressman's press secretary could spare on Friday morning, little of our conversation actually revolved around my assignment - but rather focused on his belief that the e-mail interview is supreme.
He contended that a question-and-answer session held via e-mail communication warranted more "accurate" answers to the questions we asked, rather than the answers one could sputter off in the heat of the moment. For example, he said that a congressman on his way to a committee meeting has probably been briefed extensively beforehand on the committee subject matter, and that asking a question on something completely opposite (say, immigration) could result in the congressman giving the first answer that comes to mind.
But wait a minute. Isn't that what we want?
When a crisis breaks, such as the Minnesota bridge tragedy, you don't send an e-mail to those impacted by it - you interview them, face-to-face, moments after it happens to get real, true to life answers. Why should it be any different for someone in political office?
That's the joy in journalism - catching your subject in the heat of the moment and capturing what they really feel. Relying on e-mail seems like an easy fix, and while it may be one of the ways the press continues to "converge," it certainly takes the human element out of the story.
What's your opinion of the e-mail interview?
- Jodi Westrick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment