Conversation is news
Dianne Bellamy-Small could not be reached for comment.
We've written those words or a version of them many times over the last several months. Earlier this month, as the pressure to talk about the leaked police report approached Mount St. Helens levels, our reporter approached her at a council meeting. She refused to answer questions but said, "My fax machine still works. Fax me (your questions) and I'll decide whether to answer."
She answered, but has clammed up since, including a "public" meeting she held in which any member of public could ask questions -- except members of the media.
Coincidentally, on Monday, we asked for an interview with Kevin Lear, the school system's chief operating officer, to talk about the conditions at Dudley High School. We thought that some of the information we needed might require him to pull records, so we e-mailed him a list of questions in advance.
Next thing we know, a school system media relations manager e-mailed us Lear's answers to the questions. We repeated our request for a direct interview with Lear and, the manager, Chad Campbell, responded: "In an effort to avoid misinformation being distributed to the public, all questions need to be submitted in an email format to myself. I will then forward your questions to Kevin Lear for a response. Also, please indicate your deadline when submitting questions."
You might well ask whether this is how people paid by taxpayers should respond to questions from taxpayers. Or, as Hoggard points out, constituents. I know how busy public officials are. I appreciate the perception that reporters ask pesky, impudent questions that are a pain to address. I well understand the advantage of composing thoughtful, articulate answers on paper in advance.
But these two examples illustrate that the importance of an exchange of information and ideas. After receiving their answers in writing, we had other questions of both Bellamy-Small and Lear and no way of asking them in a timely fashion. In Lear's case, we were fortunate that his boss, Superintendent Terry Grier, was able to talk with us before our deadline.
Discussion encourages participants to clarify points, to correct misinformation, to challenge assertions and to have the interaction that leads to understanding. It can be the tried-and-true way of voice-to-voice interviewing or the new-fangled blog method (think Sandy). If the goal is to inform the public quickly and accurately -- and I'd submit that is the goal of public officials and the media -- then these two points should be an anomaly, not a trend.
As a step to discourage the trend, we plan to adhere more strictly to our practice of submitting questions in advance only rarely.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"In an effort to avoid misinformation being distributed to the public, all questions need to be submitted in an email format to myself."
This came from someone in education? Sigh...
Posted on May 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Well, it seems to me they could stick to their policy of answering questions only in writing. They're under no obligation to answer questions in a particular medium or format just as you're under no obligation to ask questions in any particular medium or format.
Obviously it works best if both parties can agree to a particular set up, but if not then really your both reduced to playing from your respective positions of strength. If you really want their response then you have to follow their rules. On the other hand if they want to have their say in the story then they have to play by yours.
Their problem is that the moment they talk to you they lose any sense of control. They have no guarantee that you'll keep their quote in context, or that they will not be made out a fool or scoundrel. Right or wrong I think these are pretty normal, visceral human reactions to being questioned by anyone, but especially someone whose words will be read by thousands of people in the community. So what's their motivation to play in your sandbox?
That's why I wonder why more haven't jumped on the blogging bandwagon. It's a way to make sure they get their version of the story out unfiltered, and as you hinted at in your post they could respond to inquiries via the comments. Then the whole world could see how the conversation (or inquisition) evolved. Right now we the readers only see your (edited) version of the conversation and it is no surprise to me that people would resist getting involved in the first place.
Now I'm not accusing you guys of being unfair, nor am I saying that people shouldn't respond to your questions (I especially think elected leaders and civil servants should) but I am saying that their reticence is understandable. It behooves you to work with them in the way that puts them most at ease, even if it is in writing, so that you can get their input. And of course it behooves them to work with you in as much of a non-adversarial way as possible.
I think we call this concept polite conversation.
Posted on May 16, 2006 12:11 PM
I agree with you to an extent, Jon. I'm not saying that the interview process has to be face-to-face or voice-to-voice. An e-mail conversation is fine. I've participated in those and enjoyed having just the control over my words that you reference. Same with blogs.
For us, the issue is not the medium of exchange but that, first, the conversation actually occurs and, second, that it is timely. Conducting a conversation via e-mail or blogs can be done swiftly or done over the course of days. The latter doesn't serve the newspaper all that well.
The other question is what obligation do elected officials and public servants have to the people who pay their salaries? We don't ask for anything that any citizen isn't entitled to. (In fact, we think we're asking for answers that citizens want to know but don't have time or ability to pursue.) Does Dianne Bellamy-Small ask her constituents to fax their questions and concerns to her? I know that we are viewed differently by sources because our reports reach many, but, as people in the blogosphere know, that world is changing. More and more people are becoming reporters. Is everyone going to have to submit written questions through a media relations office? Perhaps.
Posted on May 16, 2006 12:31 PM
You make some good points John, but I'll be a little contrarian and say that common sense tells us that all constituents will be treated differently depending on their station in life. A wealthy donor will get through the door of any politician's office before just about anyone else; an influential activist will be heard, if not invited through the door, because they have the leverage of their constituency; journalists will be handled carefully because, well, they should be.
Yes you, the media, are all citizens. But exactly because you carry a great deal of influence and the impact of any words uttered to you is like speaking to an auditorium full of people without the benefit of knowing exactly which of those words is going to be heard a politician should hold you to a different standard. Would you expect someone to show up at a packed Greensboro Coliseum to speak without being, a. nervous and b. somewhat more prepared than when speaking to the guy at the deli?
As for your last question, "Is everyone going to have to submit written questions through a media relations office?" I'd say that any politician foolish enough to do that won't be a politician much longer. As for public servants, well if you look at places like the DMV I think we're already doing it:)
Posted on May 16, 2006 2:24 PM
Well, if I were a politician holding elective office, yes, I would expect to have to speak to any representative of the media (and any citizen) in conversation and assume that my words will be quoted.
That aside, I understand that the public servants want to control their words. I understand their trepidation of losing control when they speak to any media member. I am fine if they want to discuss an issue via e-mail so they can get their words the way they want them. But the key is "discuss." In both cases, there was one exchange: we asked, they answered. The option of pursuing clarification or other questions wasn't realistically available, at least within our time constraints.
I don't know how Bellamy-Small routinely communicates her views to her constituents or to citizens of Greensboro. I know it's not through the newspaper or broadcast television or blogs, except what we can discern from her comments in council meetings. Seems to me that that is an obligation of holding public office, but I could be wrong about that.
Isn't it nice to have a polite conversation about it all? :)
Posted on May 16, 2006 4:20 PM
Here's hoping this posts (the N&R site is VERY slow for me today).
Jon, I agree that media groups cut comments and don't frame what you say in the way you try to say it but pulling little chunks from it. It might be a reason to ask for questions beforehand.
But.
Unless you're there to hear an answer, how do you know what to ask next? Unless you see or hear someone's voice tensing up, then you can't intuit the next question. Without that sort of human give-and-take, we (the people) won't get the best of all answers. They'll be pat, rehearsed and will fall short of our (the people) expectations of getting the deeper information.
Sure, getting the questions in advance is professional thing for reporters to do when research may be involved but written Q&A is hardly informative. I want news, not PR.
Posted on May 16, 2006 7:48 PM
re Sue's
> Without that sort of human give-and-take, we (the people) won't get the best of all answers.
Depends. As interviewees, some of us think a whole lot better with our fingers than with our vocal cords. And as interviewers, some of us are easily swayed by body language and bluster, whereas in print the logic or lack thereof is much easier to discern.
Related, AJR from Dec./Jan 06 on Inbox Journalism - pros and cons of email interviews.
And JR, as for me, I'm just jealous that when you ask questions you get answers.
(p.s. this comment's got an industrial-strength deja vu feel to it; apologies if it's a clone.)
Posted on May 18, 2006 8:45 PM