“…I really think it depends who it is, because you can tell whether someone might interfere with your work or if they would simply enjoy a little input …”

I have not found this to be true at all. People are quirky about seeing themselves in print. As I mentioned, I have written a number of pieces for an RPP that requires quote approval and I have been AMAZED at the responses I get. Most of the time, people just want to tweak a bit and that doesn’t surprise me. The ones that do:

I once wrote a feature on a guy — I mean, the entire article was about him and his quotes — and he had no changes. None.

Another time, I worked with a friend and she had me re-do her quote with her at least three times. It was a sensitive issue to her, and she wanted to get it just right. But it was only one sentence!

Recently, I used a quote that I got from someone — in an E-mail — for a story. When I called back to verify, she was out of the office, but when I spoke to her boss, boy, was he mad! It turns out she wasn’t supposed to be doing PR for the company at all. Fortunately, her boss worked with me instead and it wasn’t a big deal (to me — I do wonder what happened when she returned to the office, though!).

At present, I’m leaning toward reading quotes back right after an interview (advice I got from a former newspaper reporter) but I have to say that for my pieces — which, as Phil pointed out, aren’t controversial — I’ve appreciated the reviews. Even with the problems, I like knowing that I haven’t made a mistake. Nearly all changes that I’ve encountered have been cosmetic in nature — something that matters a great deal to the source but not to me.

Anyway, Roxie, I would probably make a decision based upon whether the piece is controversial rather than whether you think the interviewee will be controversial. Like I said, people are quirky.

My two cents — I’ve enjoyed reading what everyone else has to say.

OTOH, if I am doing a piece on Autism or joint-replacement surgery for a health feature, the interviewees do not get the piece in advance. Also if I am reviewing a book, and including an author interview as part of the review — tough, author sees the finished work.

I also do it/do not do it as directed by my editor. If he/she says show the interviewee, I show them. If they say do not, I do not. It’s the golden rule — the editor has the gold and gets to make the rules.

Do it when it is appropriate, don’t do it when it is not appropriate, and if you cannot tell the difference, don’t do interviews.

-Roxie

Some pubs do allow what Julie mentions, which is typically OK for any writing that’s not too controversial — like some magazine features — some editors even prefer writers do this.

On the $1,000 that Erik and Mariella referred to — that points out the importance of reading books about running a business. The idea didn’t come from a specific book, but more from having a background in understanding what some other businesses do when client seeks more work than what should be expected in terms of agreement/contract.

It also comes from getting stuck before with a project that continued to expand with no expansion of fees. I had some good advice from other business people how to handle such issues in the future.

It’s been a mixed bag in terms of hassle. In general, I’ve found that people who have been interviewed more often tend to let things stand. Most of my interviewees have requested little to no changes. But some people have been very difficult to work with.

On the plus side, I’ve had a few embarrassing gaffes never make it to print and many happy interviewees. On the down side, I’ve wasted time and lost a few good quotes.

I thought dealing with editing teams for an accounting association newletter was tough — individual members would disagree and I had to balance those views in a newsletter that they then reviewed and had me make changes — but I can’t imagine the hassles you must have gone through.

I only interviewed once before and according to advice given to me by more experienced writers, I didn’t let the interviewee see what was written.