One of the biggest media changes happening right now is the shift of power between journalists and everyone else. It used to be simple: The media was the only venue for getting something across, so you worked with journalists as your intermediary. Well, the web has disintermediated a lot of things, and now it's working on interviews. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz noted that yesterday:
It is a transaction that clearly favors the person asking the questions. A print reporter writes down someone's answers, then picks and chooses how much, if any, to use, how to frame the quotes and where to put any contrary information. Television correspondents slice and dice taped interviews in similar fashion.
But in the digital age, some executives and commentators are saying they will respond only by e-mail, which allows them to post the entire exchange if they feel they have been misrepresented, truncated or otherwise disrespected. And some go further, saying, You want to know what I think? Read my blog.
A decade ago, you didn't really have that choice, but now you do. A decade ago, if you thought you had been misquoted, what could you do? Write a letter to the editor that would probably fall down the memory hole is about it. Now - you can not only record the entire interview (email or audio) - you can post it yourself.
How can media adapt? More transparency. I recall that the NY Times used to (maybe they still do) post entire speech transcripts in the paper. There are no "space limitations" online, so if a journalist like Kurtz interviewed someone, it would be simple to post the summary story along with a link to the full content (audio/video/text). This would give them more credibility, and the journalists still have one advantage over people like me in that regard: they have staff to handle the posting details. Journalists may not have the level of control they once had, but they can stay in the game - all they have to do is play by the new rules.
Technorati Tags: interview