This module addresses these ethical questions:<\/p>\n
Nearly every journalist does interviews. But sometimes interviewer and interviewee have different ideas of what the ground rules are.<\/p>\n
First of all, what\u2019s an \u201cinterview\u201d? Increasingly, reporters connect with interviewees by phone, email, video chat and social networks. Some journalists consider any of these forms of communication to be as legitimate as a face-to-face interview in the same room. They use the word \u201cinterview\u201d to describe an interaction on any platform.<\/p>\n
Other journalists and organizations feel nothing can completely replace actually sitting down with a news source in person. They vastly prefer in-person interviews for all but the most routine exchanges. They also believe the reader should be put on alert if the \u201cinterview\u201d consists of something other than that. They insist on saying in the story, \u201csaid in an email interview,\u201d \u201csaid in a Skype chat,\u201d etc. Some even mention if the interview was conducted by telephone.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s also the question of what quotes or information contained in an interview are \u201con the record\u201d or not. Many journalists believe that unless the interview subject says otherwise, anything said can be freely quoted. (This approach is best suited to interviews with officials and others who have dealt with the press previously; it is not necessarily appropriate to conversations with people unfamiliar with reporters or with children.)<\/p>\n
Several types of ground rules are available for interviews, so long as journalist and subject understand the differences. The Associated Press uses these definitions:<\/p>\n
Once information or a quote is given on the record, are there any other barriers to publication?<\/p>\n
Sometimes interviewees insist on “quote approval”; that is, that even an on-the-record quote must be sent back to the source (or a spokesperson) for approval. Sometimes, the interviewee also claims the right to modify the quote.<\/p>\n
Some journalists accept this practice as the price of getting an interview with a sought-after subject. Others will give up an interview rather than agree to quote approval, believing the practice essentially reduces an interview to a set of written statements approved by the interviewee or his public relations team. These journalists may occasionally voluntarily check a quote with a newsmaker to make sure the quote is right. But they believe this must be at the journalist\u2019s initiative, not a condition of the interview.<\/p>\n
Similarly, some journalists will agree to show their finished interview, audio, video, etc., to the newsmaker before publication. They may genuinely want the interviewee\u2019s assessment of the tone and accuracy of the piece. Others refuse to do so, on the grounds that content of the piece is exclusively their business. Showing a story to an interviewee can also lead to protracted pre-publication arguments.<\/p>\n
Sometimes interview subjects ask for questions in advance or ask that certain issues not be raised. Some reporters will agree to such conditions to get the interview. Others will not give interviewees this chance to control the conversation. They may offer to list a few subjects they intend to ask about but reserve the right to ask about other things as well.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s also the question of whether the full purpose of the interview needs to be disclosed, even during the interview. If a comment by the interviewee during an apparently routine exchange becomes the \u201cgotcha\u201d quote in an investigative story, the interviewee may feel he was deceived. One way to address this point is to return to sources later, before publication, to let them know how a quote is being used and — without letting them \u201cunsay\u201d the quote — see if they have additional comment.<\/p>\n
Some journalists pay for interviews or access, viewing payment as part of the cost of doing business. They may also feel that because their news organization \u201cmakes money\u201d from interviews, it\u2019s appropriate to pay something to the interviewee. Other journalists strongly oppose such practices. First, they can drive up the cost of newsgathering and turn every effort to get information into a negotiation. More important, when interviewees view their comments as a product they\u2019re selling, they often tend to embellish them. They can also take ever more radical positions, or stretch the facts beyond what they said in the last interview, in an effort to \u201cenhance\u201d their product for the next paying journalist.<\/p>\n
Many interviewees may not understand what they\u2019re getting into by granting an interview. Some journalists believe they should clearly tell interview subjects — particularly young people, traumatized people or those unfamiliar with being interviewed — that their comments and images may be archived online forever. Other journalists feel most people are quite familiar with the online world and do not need such warnings.<\/p>\n
Depending on the country and culture involved, ethics and accuracy may require reporters to devote substantial time to conducting interviews and to question people patiently and gently. Some interviewees cannot be rushed.<\/p>\n
Interviewees who have suffered traumatic events often require particularly sensitive handling so as not to re-traumatize them by asking them to recount what they endured. Some journalists make a point of not interviewing anyone at a time of trauma or shock. Others believe such blanket bans are excessive, that retelling a traumatic event can be therapeutic and that coverage of victims is important to the community.<\/p>\n
Resources for interviewing survivors of sexual and gender-based violence include guides from the Dart Center<\/a> and WITNESS<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reporters should also be careful not to react to interviewees\u2019 answers in a way that suggests they have or haven\u2019t said what the reporter is looking for. Some interviewees are eager to please and may distort their answers in an effort to say what the reporter wants.<\/p>\n Suppose a journalist agrees to an off-the-record or background interview with a newsmaker, who later dies? Is the journalist then released from his obligation not to identify the source? It\u2019s a controversial matter<\/a>. As a matter of law, at least in some countries, a promise of anonymity is a contract. The journalist may still have an obligation to honor the contract — if not to the interview subject, then to his or her estate. In such a case, the reporter might be well-advised to approach the newsmaker\u2019s heirs for permission to use the material. There\u2019s also a strong argument that, at least in the case of an interviewee of substantial importance, the needs of history justify the use of the material.<\/p>\n The primary author of this section is Thomas Kent<\/a>.<\/p>\n Additional Reading<\/strong> This module addresses these ethical questions: Are comments in email exchanges, Skype chats or Google Hangouts \u201cinterviews\u201d? What should ground rules for interviews be? What about requests for questions in advance? Should reporters pay for interviews? Should reporters tell interviewees all the ways the interview may be used? What about covering traumatized people? Does a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82,"featured_media":0,"parent":25,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-295","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nSee the section\u00a0on \u201cConfidential sources\u201d
\nShut up and listen: Getting the most from your interviews<\/a>
\nGetting personal: Learning and telling life\u2019s most intimate stories<\/a>
\nAdvance review: To show or not to show<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"