Students Encounter Real-Life Interviewing Pitfalls

Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

It occurred to me during our series of mock interviews that there were a few issues we had yet to talk about that the Publications students might encounter in the course of conducting interviews for their stories.

There were three terms in particular I had frequently heard in my own work for Horizons:

- On the Record: The default condition during an interview in which the source can be named and quoted directly.

- Off the Record: An explanation or side-conversation the source provides for context during an interview but that the source does not expect the journalist to report. Technically, the source cannot mandate information stay off the record, but journalists generally respect this rule as a means of maintaining their source’s trust.

- Not for Attribution: A statement that the journalist can directly quote or report, but without revealing the exact name of the source. Usually the source is identified with a generic title, such as “a senior government official.”

In addition to these terms, students were likely to run into interviewees who would ask to see the article before it was published.

Although the reporter has the discretion to allow others to see her or his work ahead of time, it’s almost always a bad idea – the other party will almost invariably take the opportunity to critique the article or pressure the journalist into conforming to that person’s own agenda.

I talked with Professor Karyn Smith about quickly going over these issues during the class period after I was interviewed by the class. She agreed.

But we were already too late.

One of the students approached us at the end of class and began explaining that she had agreed to send an article to one of her interviewees. The interviewee had caught her in the hallway earlier that day and criticized her choice of quotes.

The student shed tears as she explained how she had been caught entirely off guard by the meeting.

She had a copy of the article with her. I looked at the quotes. They were straightforward and not at all inflammatory.

“Did he say that you had misquoted him, or that you misinterpreted his quotes?”

She answered that he hadn’t said anything was wrong with the quotes – just that he couldn’t understand why she chose the ones she did.

Smith and I attempted to reassure the student. I told her that I saw no reason whatsoever to pull the article from publication, but that we would allow her to make that decision. Smith said she would not penalize the student for pulling it, but both of us urged her not to. In addition, Smith said the interviewee could get in touch with her, the editor-in-chief  or me if he had any further problems.

The student expressed another worry, though – she knew the source and didn’t want to have the awkwardness of the incident hanging over things. I told her that was something she would eventually have to face, no matter what she did about the article. I said she should encourage him to write a letter to the editor in which he could say whatever he liked. We would be thrilled to have more conversation in the paper.

I also explained that, assuming she took proactive steps to repair the relationship, the whole thing would pass faster than she might think.

The pep talk seemed to help. At our next class, I began by explaining the interviewing terms. We segued into a general discussion in which various students related stories of times when sources had asked to see what was written ahead of time.

I didn’t realize it was so pervasive. Several Pub II students said they had given articles to sources to “review” before publication. One said he did it so that he could change quotes if the source didn’t like the ones he used.

That, I explained, was ceding editorial control to the source.

The student who had come to us the previous class now shared her experience with the entire group. Many of the students reacted vociferously. If they hadn’t recognized the danger of sharing their work with sources before, they now saw the potential consequences.

It can be difficult to navigate some of the ethical and procedural challenges involved in being a journalist. The first issue was spent familiarizing the students with the essential process of writing for the paper. Since then, we have begun to tackle the stickier wickets.

Though we cannot cover everything, the staff should be confident in the responsibilities and privileges of working for the press by the time we’re through with them.