Thanks again!!

Interviewing is much like making any business or social connection. Get a conversation going first, even if it’s minor chit-chat, but be respective of the subject’s time.

Know your subject matter first, meaning doing any background homework that’s available. That doesn’t mean being a subject matter expert. It may not be possible. A lot of football players may not be able to write, but someone writing about football should understand the game, with more sophistication for more in-depth publications.

You need to understand the audience that will read what you will write. Someone with passing knowledge can write a football article aimed at the novice, but you’ll need to know a lot more if writing for die-hard fans.

But even when writing for the novice, you need to understand the basics of the game.

(Yes, I am a former sportswriter).

Even if it’s not sports, the basics still apply.

If you’re very new to interviewing, treat it like you would being new to anything. Do a couple of practice interviews with friends, neighbors, etc., before doing the “real” ones. Did you get the information you wanted? If not, consider revising your questions.

Hope the above helps.

Since I write mostly for trades, most of my editors will handle the fact checking themselves, after their department edits the piece. Showing a source the piece before it is submitted can create a lot of hard feelings and confusion if the final piece is different.

As a fledgling writer myself, I would never impose my style on another writer, nor would I tell him what to write. But I think interviewers have an obligation to their subjects to assure them that they understood the basic information. That’s what I didn’t get from the guy who interviewed me. A follow-up would have been nice.

I’ve been interviewed twice, and on one occasion I was offered the article to clarify any mistakes. Writers cannot assume that all non-writers know how the interview/article process works? It’s like my doctor friend interjecting medical lingo into our conversations. WHAT?? For someone like me, who is a very ordinary person, I had no clue that you aren’t suppose to ask for the article prior to publication. Now I do.

I have had many uncooperative interviewees, however, and I find that it helps to talk to them about something else entirely, current events, something they are at ease with to show that I’m not out to uncover dirt, just have a conversation. By the end, generally I have enough to not only craft a good article, but it has a little more of the persons personality in it. I am always astounded by people who refuse to help themselves in interview situations, even if there are distractions, etc. There’s nothing like free publicity and people are unfailingly ungrateful for it.

I happen to like doing email interviews. A lot of writers say that then you don’t get the benefit of visual cues, but I think you get better quotes when the interviewee has more time to think about his or her answers. And, they are less likely to freeze up or be uncooperative via email.

I wouldn’t say it’s a no-no to show the interview subject the article. Some writers don’t like doing so, or are prohibited from it by their publisher, but other writers prefer to have the interviewee check the actual article. Unless you are writing an extremely provacative piece or pitting two sources’ quotes against one another, I actually don’t think there is anything ethically wrong with it.

I do have a story about when showing the piece to your subject is a bad idea. I once interviewed a woman who was a very difficult interview subject, but not because she wouldn’t talk — because she talked too much. That should have been my first clue. She fancied herself a writer, too, which should have been my second.

Anyway, when I emailed her the finished piece and asked her to verify that everything was correct, she “helpfully” copyedited the whole thing for me. (GRRRRR…) About half of the changes I didn’t care one way or the other, but the other half were either unnecessary or unclear (i.e. she was trying to stuff too much information into one phrase or one sentence). Then, after the paper went to press, she suddenly emailed me again and complained — as if she hadn’t already reviewed (and changed) the article — that I didn’t mention her husband enough.

That is, however, the only time anything like that has ever happened. I usually prefer to just send the interviewee the article and get him or her to verify the facts and quotes — that way there is no opportunity for a “Hey, I didn’t know you were going to say it like that!” after the piece appears.