An imagined conversation with Jeff Jarvis
Have you heard the news? Jeff Jarvis, the Big Thinker New Media Guru of Web 2.0, wrote in a blog post complaining about how a reporter took his words out of context that the interview is dead:
[W]hat really struck me in this process — and it is always good for a journalist to endure journalism — is that the interview itself is becoming outmoded….
I didn’t say a single new thing to the Observer; everything I said I’d written already on my blog, so I was only drawn to repeat myself (and after four days of recording an audiobook, even I was sick of the sound of my own voice- – yes, it finally happened).
The process of the interview has the reporter hold all the cards in his hand: who he talks with and what he will reveal to each and what he will say in the end, without links to what any of the parties has said. Then the reporter gets to toss it all on the table. A process of links and discovery and conversation and correction would be far more illuminating of the ideas and issues than this old process of control through the sieve (and efforts to trump up conflict and drama). That, you see, is the real moral to the story: It’s the form that’s bullshit.
It makes you wonder if Jarvis has done any actual reporting before, doesn’t it?
Here’s an imagined scenario in which Jarvis the reporter calls up the spokesman of a government agency after officials in it were indicted for corruption:
JARVIS: Hi, I’m from the Examiner and I have a few questions about the indicted officials.
SPOKESMAN: Um, everything you need is in the press release.
JARVIS: Yes, but the press release didn’t include key details and doesn’t address the contradictory statements made by the officials during the investigation.
SPOKESMAN: Hey, aren’t you the one who called for the death of the interview? We even copy and pasted the press release into our new blog on the agency’s website. You’re just trying to “hold all the cards in your hand” like so many other journalists. It really is just egotistical of you.
JARVIS: Well, I suppose I did say that. I’ll just go and reprint the press release that you sent to 30 other reporters –
SPOKESMAN: — and don’t forget published on our blog.
JARVIS: Oh yes, that too.
Note to news agencies that are currently paying Jarvis thousands in consulting fees. If he comes to you tomorrow with this new revelation that your reporters don’t need to interview people: RUN.
Just another example of Jarvis taking a singular experience of his and applying it to the entire industry.
Oh, come on, Simon, here you go again. This time you want my reporting credentials. What’s the address where I should drop off my boxes of clips? Watch out, they’re big and heavy.
You’re grossly misrepresenting what I’m saying. Of course, I’m not saying that reading blog posts first equals taking press releases at face and full value. I’m talking about the specifics of a profile interview when the subject blogs. I’m saying that the interview – like such a phone call – could and should go BEYOND what is already published online if only it were read first and if there were MORE questioning via links. I’m complaining, indeed, that what happened to me was what you present: just repetition of what I’d already said, not going the next step.
Let’s look at what you did here: You merely imagined. You didn’t report. You could have gone to my blog and seen where I have reported. I could have told you. But you didn’t want facts to get in the way, again, so you imagined. If you were in my journalism class, Simon, you can guess what grade you’d get for this exercise.
I see you reported from 2006-2008 before becoming an associate blogger (what’s that? I didn’t know there were ranks in blogging). I began reporting in 1973, reporting for suburan papers in Chicago, then the Burlington Iowa Hawk-Eye, then the Detroit Free Press, then Chicago Today, then the Chicago Tribune, then the San Francisco Examiner, then People magazine. Then I switched to being primarily an editor as the creator of Entertainment Weekly and Sunday Editor and Associate Publisher of the New York Daily News. Then I started more than a dozen leading news brands online. Now I write for the Guardian. Want to compare CVs and qualifications, Simon?
Come on, you can do better than this. Make your points, make your arguments, ask your questions, get some facts without resorting to childish insult and imagination.
If you were in my class, I’d send you back for a rewrite.
Note to companies receiving Owens’ resume as he tries to get a job: This is the kind of “reporting” you’ll apparently get from him.
Jeff, my comment about whether or not you’ve done any reporting was sarcastic. I’ve read Buzz Machine for going on two years now and I’ve read plenty of articles about you and your work.
I think the Observer gains a lot from interviewing you, even if the reporter is basically just repeating what you said in your blog; it gives context of the personality behind these ideas. Little details ranging from the way you dress (the type of glass you wear, for instance) to how you respond to questions help in fleshing out a profile.
A magazine profile using new journalism style is much more than a series of quotes and ideas. Read any good piece in the New Yorker and you’ll find that the journalist deftly weaves a person’s idiosyncrasies and miscellaneous biographical tidbits into a compelling narrative. A good profile dives into the person behind the blog, the commercials, the movies, etc… To simply mine through what is already publicly available is to only scratch the surface. Maybe in this instance the Observer writer was just scratching the surface, but I definitely think that a journalist benefits from simply observing his interview subjects, even if it’s the way he or she responds to questions over the phone.
Thanks for commenting.
Simon,
Thanks for commenting in return. Why couldn’t you have said it this way in the first place? Your comment is so much more informative of your thinking than your post – and not insulting and snarky for the sake of it.
It’s well worth examining the value of the in-person interview now. But it’s also worth examining the value of links in the process, not all controlled by one reporter holding all the cards but more three-dimensional view that can be drawn via links. I started writing about this here: – http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/26/the-obsolete-interview/ – and hope to add to the thinking in a later post (I’m on deadline for the Guardian right now and so I’m being brief). I see new opportunities for the interview.
Simon, this is now the second time you’ve chosen to react to something I’ve said first with insult and then with discussion. Can we please skip the first step? Or there’s soon no point in the second.
In addition to editors, Jeff seems to want to eliminate physics from journalism. Time and space still apply to our lives and those are two good reasons why interviews are necessary. Time: people’s ideas change, as does their emphasis, their convictions. Space: people show different sides depending on their environment, may notice new things being in the company of a good interviewer, may be able to better express their thoughts by showing, not telling.
Then there’s the matter of holding people to account: for what they write in private – challenging their ideas, pushing them beyond their comfort zone, forcing them to face inconvenient facts or opinions. Also, on the more paranoid side, who the hell knows if someone is responsible for what they write on their blog? … something needs to check the identity and corporeal oneness of the author of these blogs.
Jeff’s argument makes perfect sense if he wants to remain in control. This is a common response from people who find themselves under the scrutiny of journalists (I’ll be happy to pass out resumes as well), be they politicians, corporate bosses or well-meaning intellectuals.
Jeff, I agree with the power of the link in providing context. That’s why even though I do conduct in-depth interviews for all my MediaShift articles, I also link as often as possible.
Not sure why you compel me into snark. I think it’s often because you take an abrasive strategy when you write about others, and it automatically sends me into a defensive posture, even though I’m not the subject of your posts.
“Not sure why you compel me into snark. I think it’s often because you take an abrasive strategy when you write about others, and it automatically sends me into a defensive posture, even though I’m not the subject of your posts.”
Are you for real? Jesus, then you really need to grow up and get a grip if you want to be taken seriously. The premise of this post is ridiculous and I’ll go beyond what Jeff says. This isn’t simply an example of misguided satire, it shows a complete inability to comprehend something SO simple that I feel compelled to get “abrasive” and call you stupid.
Jeff’s WHOLE POINT was that he expected a reporter to go BEYOND the press release and blog in an interview! HOW COULD YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Maybe you need reading classes. Worse than being a “bad reporter,” now I just think you’re an idiot. I hope no one is paying you consulting fees.
@Jeff,
I think these guys are right. Gary Scott especially makes a strong argument for the value of interviews.
The way you arrogantly list your credentials is really obnoxious, and the way you try to come off as a wise, old prof at CUNY is kind of a joke. If I had a prof like you, I’d complain to the university.
Re: Ortedanuega
See this paragraph in my response to Jeff about whether the Observer journalist did go beyond the press release;
“I think the Observer gains a lot from interviewing you, even if the reporter is basically just repeating what you said in your blog; it gives context of the personality behind these ideas. Little details ranging from the way you dress (the type of glass you wear, for instance) to how you respond to questions help in fleshing out a profile.”
In my opinion most of MSM has already dumped the idea of news ‘gathering’ and opted for a lazy approach of regurgitating the press release as news. Just take a look at AP, USAToday, and so many other low end broad appeal outlets. Thinking humans cost money, so why not just remove the thinking from the equation and install a copy and paste system.