In a tense conversation with family today, I suddenly realized that people have a lot of misunderstanding around the interviewer-interviewee relationship in news articles
I both write articles and have been the subject of articles. Let's talk about it:
I both write articles and have been the subject of articles. Let's talk about it:
Most of the time, reporters don't write articles because the subject of the article asked them to. The reporter decided to write about the subject (or the news outlet asked them to)
Then they go look for someone to interview about the subject
Then they go look for someone to interview about the subject
If the potential interviewee says yes and does the interview, that's the end of their involvement in the article
That's true when I interview people
It's true when people interview me
It's true across the profession, as far as I can tell
That's true when I interview people
It's true when people interview me
It's true across the profession, as far as I can tell
Interviewees don't sign off on the final product. They don't even see drafts. You say goodbye to the reporter and them you wait to see if the story makes you look like shit or not
If there aren't quotes around a line in the article, the interviewee didn't say the thing. It's a paraphrase by the reporter: hopefully accurate, but not a direct quote
Most articles have word count limits, so they can't talk about everything. They're responsible for what they choose to talk about within those limits, but if you find yourself wondering why they didn't cover X, ask yourself what they should have cut to make room for X
I genuinely hope this maybe helps people better understand where news comes from
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
