Gangrey.com

Iceberg Sources

HIDDEN BELOW THE SURFACE

A question regarding long-term reporting projects.

With as many interviews as you're likely to do, you probably can't (or shouldn't) quote everyone.

So is there a good way to tell the person who just gave you an hour of their time that they probably won't appear in the story?

Should you inform them of that possibility beforehand?

These days especially, certain people give interviews about someone else or something else specifically because they want publicity for themselves.

Is it our job to let them know they might not get it?

Comments

Re: Iceberg Sources

These are good questions. I'm not so sure we owe it to sources to tell them ahead of time that they might not make it into the article. For one thing, we don't know either way. So I don't think it's being dishonest not to tell someone upfront that they might talk for an hour or two and not get quoted. I've heard of some reporters who almost audition families when they are looking for the perfect one for their story. They interview five or ten and pick the best one. I'm less keen on that, but I do think that when you go to write a story some people fit into it and some don't. Part of the writer's job is to make decisions that shield the reader from wasted time. We pick and choose. If someone asks me, I'm honest. Usually I tell them I don't know.

As for people's reasons for giving an interview, you can respect those reasons while still guarding against being used. We know that it's not our job to help someone's business. It's not always easy, but I have to remind myself that my allegiance should be to the reader. I owe the editor my best effort. I owe my sources honesty in quoting and describing them. I owe readers something true and worth their time.

Re: Iceberg Sources

I follow the same course as Mark. I try to be as honest and forthright about my intentions out of the gate. Often, I've told sources - regardless if it's a long-form piece or daily turn - that they might not get quoted, but I try to emphasize that they still have a valuable role. A line that works best for me in the past has been, "You may not be quoted, but believe me when I say that what you share during our time chatting will be accounted for in the story. It will help me decide what facts to include, what moments to highlight, and make sure context is accurate." When you lay it our for a source that way, I think it changes the way you're perceived as a reporter. Put simply, I think it makes you appear less exploitive and helps a person understand, in some way, what your task is. Finally, it helps the source grasp that the hour they gave a way is still meaningful, even if their name doesn't land in print.

As to the second question, that's where a good Nexis search comes in handy for me. Before I start a piece, I take the same approach that I used as a history major: hit primary and secondary sources, see which names pop up when commenting on/writing about an issue and what are their views. Also, I assume that every potential source wants publicity or accepts it is a nice perk to go along with their day job. Most of the time, I come away with a list of potential sources or characters from Nexis/academic journal searches. I assume someone on that list is going to be hesitant or dead-set against being interviewed unless they wind up in print. Yet, I know that I have back ups.

For the final question, I believe in being candid. The reason people distrust more and more as a profession and the craft we practice is that we appear to be taking advantage of someone for our own gain or not seeking all the facts. For me, telling someone they might not get attention doesn't elicit any qualms or pose a professional conundrum. My job is tell stories that are true, and with that comes being honest with folks who help reveal that truth. As I wrote earlier, telling people that they still have a part in that mission can go a long way.

Re: Iceberg Sources

In 2005, I wrote a story for the Oxford American in which I interviewed some piano-prodigy teenagers. I spent equal time with about 10 of them, knowing I would neither quote every subject nor use every scene in the piece. After the story appeared, a father of one of the prodigies was upset I hadn't included, or quoted, his son; the dad was also just frustrated that I didn't mention the young man's name at all. I felt bad about this, in a way, because they'd let me spend a whole day with them; but, I hadn't known what I was going to use until I sat down and just wrote it. I had no idea even when I went with the two of them to a local museum that I wouldn't use it, even though it was good stuff. So afterward, the father asked me if I would send him the part about his son that was left out of the story, like, so they could at least have it as some kind of memento. When I said it didn't work like that--that I hadn't written anything about his son--he asked me to write up a story about him based off that day. I didn't email him back, because I didn't know what to say. I mean, the guy just wanted to read about his son. I kind of understood that. So, it's hard. I still, to this day, don't ever tell anyone explicitly if I'm going to use them in the story or not, even though that happened to me.

Re: Iceberg Sources

Great points, all you guys. Matthew, I like your approach of full disclosure from the beginning. I guess I've never been bold enough to lay it all out like that. Maybe I should.

I've been in the business less than ten years now, but even in that time I've noticed a change in people. It seems harder than ever now to get people to do interviews or return calls. And when they do, they seem less likely to want to spend more than a few minutes talking. I wonder why. Has anyone else noticed this?

Re: Iceberg Sources

Jim Sheeler might be a good one to ask about this. I'd heard through the grapevine that the editing of his "Final Salute" project was quite painful because some of the families who had allowed him into their homes and shared their griefs ended up getting very little mention in the story. If so, I think there are some important lessons to keep in mind.

First, it isn't entirely up to the reporter what goes in the story and what ends up on the cutting room floor, so it might not be a good idea to say you will or won't be using the interview. Second, the goal is the best story possible, and you have to be willing to make hard decisions that move you toward that goal. "Final Salute" seems an excellent example of that thinking. You just know that a lot of material didn't make it into the story (maybe Jim used it in the book). Everything Jim did use in the newspaper piece moved the story forward, grabbed the reader, compelled him or her to keep going.

Re: Iceberg Sources

Tom, I'm sensing the opposite. Not sure why, but it seems much easier now to get people to talk and return calls. Maybe its the rep of the publication. Maybe I'm just more confident in my pitches to would-be sources.

I stay far away from any conversation about what I might use unless someone asks specifically, and they never have. Why introduce upfront something that may hurt your conversation?

If you hear from the unused source afterward, shame on her for being so selfish. That's easy to defend.

Re: Iceberg Sources

My sense is that a sources willingness to talk or provide access is tied to the subject of a piece.

In reporting a story on why a corporate executive was hired as president of public university system, I found most industry analysts at investment firms and members of the company's board to be hard sells. In their line of work, controlling perception is every thing. Their reticence wasn't all that surprising. On the flip side, I had almost no problem securing access and time with a NBA D-League coach and a coach at an NAIA program when I wanted to write about their teams, coaching style and struggles.

In college, I learned in various economics courses about the concept of asymmetric information and found it useful in dealing with sources: the entity with more knowledge about the conditions in the market has an inherent advantage that it seeks to protect. When it comes to sources, I believe lots of people treat their own expertise or experience in similar way. Why share and allow that information to reach a public space where you might not be able to control its use or profit, per se, from its contents?

I view my job as selling people on the notion of letting me use that information. At that point, my artistic or creative intent matters little. My aim is to show how granting that access is mutually beneficial - even if it might be somewhat detrimental to the immediate goals of the source.

To Mark's point, I would say that I've never broached the question of whether someone will be quoted unless I'm asked. If it does come up, I default to the process I laid out in an earlier post.

John Krakauer addresses the whole issue about disclosure and access in an interview contained in "The New New Journalism" anthology. It really helped me start to sort through this ethical morass.

Re: Iceberg Sources

Especially when I'm talking to someone who isn't used to being interviewed, but also with people who are, I usually give a kind of preamble before we really get started.

It won't be the first thing out of my mouth, but after pleasantries, I'll usually say something like, "I'm writing a magazine story. They work differently than other stories, or how you think this might go -- I'm going to ask some questions that you might think are strange, and I'm going to really test your memory, but it all has a purpose. Details make a story like this one, and I want to get them right. I want to get all of it right. So I might ask you about the weather, or what you were wearing that day, or how you felt about a particular moment. If you don't remember, that's okay. That's understandable. And please know, too, that I'm not looking for quotes -- I won't use many quotes -- so don't worry about how you sound or what words you choose. Just tell me your story. I want to hear it, and I'm glad we're here together. I can't make many promises right now about how all of this will turn out, but I can promise you two things: I care about this story, and again, I want it to be right. Does that sound okay?"

They usually say, Okay.

And then I get started.

I find that telling people they might not be quoted much actually helps some people open up.

And I think that most people appreciate the idea of a writer who cares about getting the story right -- if you paint it that way, I think it makes it feel like we're all in this thing together, serving a higher cause: the story itself.

Or maybe it's the case of beer I give all my subjects that loosens them up. One or the other.

Re: Iceberg Sources

Everyone (just about) gets the concept of a cutting-room floor. Whether it's a deadline piece for tomorrow or a book coming out in two years, I do my level best to let people know what's coming, when, where they can find it, and whether or not their names and information made it in the final draft. And I tell them that if they have any questions about all this, to check in with me, ask me anything about that process, and how it's coming along, and when I think it'll be done and published.

I recently wrote a book that focused in on three families over a period that lasted more than two years. The draft before the penultimate draft had four families. That fourth family wound up being two pages, and in an indirect way. At one point in the reporting stage there were as many as seven families -- and that's not counting the many other people I interviewed or who gave me significant amounts of their time. As far as I can tell, every last one of them showed remarkable understanding about what was in the final book and what wasn't, especially those who didn't like the book very much. My takeaway, this time, was that these issues are sometimes not as fraught as we imagine them to be.

I find it's about as hard _and_ about as easy to get people to talk as it ever was. It's no fun if everyone readily agrees. And it's still amazing when luck intervenes and returns your phone calls.

Good journalism is a lot of times about good manners. I treat them all like I'd want to be treated, even on the difficult stuff. That includes letting them know, whenever possible, when it's running, when it will go up online, if they're in it, if they're not, and if there are pictures of them and how the pictures generally look. I also tell them there is no "wrong" reaction to have to what I've written (or what I left out) and that I hope they'll let me know what they thought of it.

Re: Iceberg Sources

That last paragraph, Hank, is right on the money. I'm going to print it out and keep it.

I like the idea of telling people there is no wrong reaction--though I must confess I wonder about that sometimes. During the health care debates I received some emails that were out and out racist, and others that dumped all over the poor (a prejudice people feel all too comfortable expressing). I think "good manners" is an excellent principle for reporters to follow; just be aware that you won't always encounter it from your readers.

Re: Iceberg Sources

I agree with Mark and Hank.

Being polite, honest and cordial goes a long way. I'm just 24, so my experience in the field is more limited than a lot of posters here, but in college I noticed my peers adopt a professional cynicism. I don't know if it is misdirected skepticism that comes with reporting or an expression of angst about the state of the industry, but the attitude is becoming more pervasive among folks my age getting into the business.

As an aside, it's cool to see this topic serving as a point of discussion among some of the best writers out there. More and more, it's one that gets left behind once students finish their introductory course on journalism and ethics. Definitely heartening for a young buck like me.

Re: Iceberg Sources

if a source spends al ot of tiem wityh me, and I know it is a possiblity they might not be included in the story, i try to let them know during the interview or when the interview is done.

Especially for people who don't deal with media much, I think it is important to give them a sense of what may happen to all the material they have entrusted to you.

i don't think it makes sense to say explicitly what will or won't happen, because you never know. The writing process may take you places you never expected, and an editor may have other ideas about your story as well.

But I do think it is important for sources to know where they stand with you. And letting them know they might not make the cut if that is a possibility seems the least you can do for them.

Re: Iceberg Sources

Thanks for this, everybody.

None

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
(include http://)
Title:

Comments:

Remember your info. on cookie?

Type the word in the image: