Sorry for the brief post. It’s my wedding anniversary and I have to get going.
Here’s a question from Hayli:
Do you always submit magazine articles to interviewees for review pre-pub for accuracy’s sake? In newspapers, of course this NEVER happened. In magazines, I find some publications are OK with me just submitting it for approval by the interviewees, some require it and require the interviewees to sign quote release forms and some take the attitude of “The First Amendment doesn’t require us to do that.” I’m sorry, but I didn’t think the first amendment really applied to magazine features, and I’d rather make sure everything is accurate in the article. So what are your blog readers doing with their magazine pieces, and why did they make that decision? I always submit my pieces for review pre-publication, but wanted to know if I’m normal.
Personally, I’ve never sent an interview subject copy for approval. I always send the finished project.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Awwwwwww…happy anniversary, Deb!!!!
Our anniversary is this Friday! September’s a great month!
All the best,
Sarah
September 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Never, ever, ever let your interviewees read things over. That’s the same as asking their permission to do your job.
Yes, you tell them up front why you are talking to them, and yes, if they want to take something back you really should. But once it’s over, it’s over. Doing anything else is the same as licking boot.
(I do community newspaper stuff, too)
September 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I made the mistake of letting an interviewer read my story when I was a rookie newspaper reporter. The lady went into a hissy fit over one word that wasn’t even in one of quotes. She was angry that I said she “warned” something instead of using the word “said.” Well, she did warn! And WARN went in the newspaper whether she liked it or not.
I learned quickly that if they don’t trust me to write the story accurately, they shouldn’t grant the interview.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I used the wrong word - that should be “interviewee” and not interviewer…
September 19th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I do send a copy if what I’m writing is purely an interview piece (ie, it is advertised as an interview with so-and-so). I know its not the norm, but I just personally feel like its most courteous. If I were interviewed, I would want someone to do that for me. I’ve been lucky enough to interview some important people in the entertainment world, and they’ve always really appreciated it.
What I don’t tell the person is that I’m sending it “for approval.” I send it pre-publication, with just a thank-you note. They’re under the impression that it’s already finalized, they won’t be nit-picky, but if there is something that I legitimately goofed, they’ll let me know and I’ll come back with “No problem, because it hasn’t been published yet!”
September 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I’ve made that mistake once too. My interviewee was practically editing my article once she read it, then began threatening not to participate if I didn’t completely change it to include information in the article SHE thought was important - even though it completely strayed from the topic. Never again.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Happy Anniversary!
I’ve never had an interviewee ask to see the article before it is published. I also tell them right away that I will show it to them as soon as it is published so I don’t really give them an option.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
As you said, it depends on the publication. My personal feeling is no review, and most pubs I write for are like that, but there are a few trade association pubs that want the reporter to get all quotes approved. They’re the client, so that’s fine.
But I’ve also had people at corporate pubs, where review should be expected, not only change their quotes, but then change their changes. It got so ridiculous with one that I had to institute charges after the first review.
For one four-page newsletter, I actually made an additional $1,000 from these “additional changes” charges.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Phil:
I think I stand corrected. For $1000 they can change anything they want.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I have yet to experience interviewing someone and these are good tips.
Happy anniversary Deb! And many more!
September 19th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Kelly,
How long in newspapers? I was in papers exclusively for 13 years. I saw your blog, do you cover sports (I did for 7 years) or are you just a fan?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Erik,
This was a corporation making changes — after first review changes — in their own newsletter. Since it was their newsletter, of course they could make changes. But I had to institute “additional changes charge” of $200 per page becauwse otherwise they kept changes words they had already changed.
So on the newsletter in question, they made 2nd changes (first were free) on all four pages, then yet another change on one of the pages after the second set of changes.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Phil -
I was in newspapers for three years. I did cover sports a little, but mostly did city news. As for my blog - that’s more a fan thing, but I love writing about sports and have done sports freelance writing.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
It’s the same way in the film industry. You never let an actor see his or her dailies (raw footage), even though they will ask (and ask, and ask).
If they don’t like what they see, they can sabotage a project before it even gets off the ground. I would imagine the right ego would start demanding rephrasing of a quote that made her sound superior, or a description that isn’t flattering.
It’s always best just to tell them to wait for the final product.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Having a background in military journalism, this is a subject I am all too familiar with. In the two military newspapers I worked for (both in Texas), here’s how it went:
1. You interview the people/do the research
2. You write the article and get it nice and tight.
3. You then send the article to each person so that they can sign off on their portion. Depending on the sensitivity of the article, sometimes you have to get higher approval. For example, whenever I did a feature about an arts class or a pottery class, since both fell under the jurisdiction of the 12th Support Group, I had to get the support group commander’s approval also.
What happens if everyone in the interview process was ok with it but the support group commander isn’t? then you have to follow what the commander says. No exceptions.
I’m forever grateful to military journalism, since that’s where I got my start as a writer. But it was a royal hemerrhoid–especially when people who can’t write worth crap suddenly decide they’re going to play Strunk and White on your article when all you really wanted them to do was check the article to make sure the facts were in order.
I’ve also freelanced for small christian publications, and it’s hit or miss: if the subject is fine with you just calling only if you need to double-check a few facts (such as this wonderful San Antonio female television personality), then fine. But if they want to read the article and bleed over it, then that was fine also.
thankfully, this is not what I do anymore. I call people back only if I need to verify something. The only times I call to double-check a quote is if they said some run-on sentences that needed to be cleaned up or if they said something controversial that I wanted to make sure can be on the record. Sometimes people will ask if they can read the article ahead of time. Almost all are fine when you politely explain that newspapers and magazines don’t do that, and that it compromises the integrity of an article if they get to edit it. One person was insistent, though; I referred them to my editor, who called me back a few days later and said that the story was killed because the person kept insisting on editorial control. No worries, the editor told me, you did the right thing.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Happy Day Deb!
I think it’s also sabotage to let someone besides the magazine read your piece. That’s a great way to lose a source before publication and then have to find a new one. I’ve had people say they won’t allow an interview unless they can see it before I’ve sent it and if they’re big name enough I’ll say yes. BUT these folks are always trouble makers. They say things like, “I didn’t say that” even if you have it on tape. They want to re-word and re-think their stance and change whole issues. It’s highly annoying.
That said if I don’t have to I won’t allow anyone but the editor on the contract to see it.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Nope. I never do. Once the article is printed, typically, the interviewee gets a copy. If it’s for a big name pub, (I’ve only written for one), the fact-checkers will send something out to the person/people I interviewed to verify the information. The most I’ll do is ask if it’s okay to send a follow-up email if I didn’t understand something from my notes or need elaboration.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Ohmigosh! Happy anniversary Deb! ♥
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:06 am
PS: Oh but, for $1000, I’d let them go over the piece and change what they want to. LOL
September 20th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Richard,
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I write for a regional parenting publication that requires that I have each interviewee review their material before publication. What I have taken to doing is having my interviewees review only the section of the article that pertains to them, and then, only for content.
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Two items:
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I just finished my first major interview piece (will post a link here when I can!!! I found the job through one of Deb’s links!); It was a major interior designer, and I really thought she herself was a good communicator in general, and I did tell her that I was sending the final draft in for approval, because I wanted to be courteous and portray her in the best light, because it was a positive interview.
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; She wanted me to take out a quote of her colleague I took from a press release, and that could have caused conflict, so it’s good she told me; and she wanted me to slightly, very slightly, alter her interview response, totally fine; it was also an e-mail interview so she already had time to think before, so I didn’t figure it would be an issue; also, say it was someone whose power I wanted to check, like a gov. official, for a piece, I might keep it has “hard-hitting” as possible, or something.
I think it’s a case-by-case basis; it was a feature article length and value, and I wanted it to come out well - if it was a 500 word event write-up with a comment or two or a short, limited-number-of-questions interview, I would not necessarily send it in for comment and/or approval.
I also did mention I thought she would already find it well-written, basically enforcing an “I-stand-by-my-work” kind of attitude…
Just my thoughts.
-Roxie
September 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
It depends. If I am writing a feel-good profile, why not? It makes sense. One example of that would be a series of profiles I am writing on famous scientists in an ethnic group for an ethnic publication (for example famous Andorran-American scientists for a Andora-America Magazine — no that does not exist, it is a fer instance). In that case you want everyone to like the piece including the subject.
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I have never done this, I only send them the final work. I would like to think that they trust that I will do a great job
September 21st, 2007 at 8:47 am
I wanted to add something about this comment, Roxie:
“…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.