How to respond to an interviewee's rude email?

November 2, 2006 4:59 AM

I'm a freelance writer and recently interviewed a few people for a piece which ran today. Two of them were unhappy with the outcome. Now what?

As happens sometimes, things were chopped and changed a lot during the various drafts of the piece. Not just by me, of course, but also by the editors.

So today I received this email from two of the interviewees:

---
Hello different,

We've seen that you haven't used any of the material we've send you. We are
very surprised, since we've taken time to answer your questions during an
extremely busy time of the year and you never once mentioned possibly not
printing it. You promissed to notify us when and where it would be printed
and haven't heard anything from you since...

Very very disapointing and a complete waste of our time

(signed)

---

I'm a bit taken aback by this and not sure how to respond - if at all. The email is pretty rude so I'm hesitant to respond with an apology. But I hardly want to get into an email argument with these people.

What should I do? Have I done anything wrong? I thought that it was common knowledge that people who are interviewed for a piece may not be quoted much, if at all, but perhaps I should start telling people that in advance. Do any other writers have any thoughts as to what to say and how to avoid this in the future?

posted by different to media & arts (40 comments total)

Hmm...I was about to totally side with you, but then I noticed that you said 'interviewed,' but the letter says 'material we've sent you.' Which was it? If you sat there and spent your own time talking to them for three hours with a tape recorder, that's a lot different than if you sent them a 20-page questionaire that took them three hours to fill out.
posted by bingo at 5:19 AM on November 2, 2006

The answer depends on whether you'll have to work with these people again. If not, ignore them altogether.

If so, you can thank them for contributing to your understanding of the issue at hand, even if they didn't get mentioned.

If editors cut them out, just tell them (although it's been used so many times as an excuse, they'll hardly believe it).

If they pissed you off, tell them that indeed it was a waste of your precious time too, and you hope they will have something of value to contribute next time they agree to an interview.

Are these guys by any chance British? I've had the worst experiences in my journalistic career with Brits (PR people, legal people, media, you name it).

I agree with bingo above: if you sent them long lists of questions to which they have responded by mail, that could sting a bit (because it takes enormous amounts of time to do this, although it never really amounts to much good. You're better of with a phone interview of 15 minutes than a five page e-mail interview).

Good luck.
posted by NekulturnY at 5:23 AM on November 2, 2006

Gah. This isn't uncommon. Most people with media training will realise that about 10% of the stuff will be used. You haven't done anything wrong.

Explain about editing procedures and that a lot of things aren't in your control, and that of course you haven't wasted their time.

As an aside, I find a lot of my fellow Brits tend to e-mail first and then think later. They perhaps have come across a great deal more annoyed than they actually are. Call them, if you can.
posted by randomination at 5:27 AM on November 2, 2006

Good point about the interview/questionnaire bit. I asked them four questions, and they responded with 700 words. So yes, that was a bit of a hassle for them, I agree, though probably didn't warrant the message they sent me.

Editors did cut them out, mainly because they talked absolute nonsense and I shouldn't have included their thoughts in the first place. But I never have to see them again, so I'm inclined to ignore the email. 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all', and all that.
posted by different at 5:28 AM on November 2, 2006

it's probably worth making sure they realise that would they said informed your decision-making process. it's not all bout what goes into the finished article.
posted by ascullion at 5:28 AM on November 2, 2006

So you asked them 4 questions and "promised" them you would tell them when it would be printed. You didn't take note of their answers, and you didn't bother to tell them it was going to be printed. Er, yeah. I'd be pissed off.

If you'd have mailed them before it came out and told them their material wasn't going to be included (and apologising for wasting their time) then yeah, this email would have been rude. Now? They're more restrained than I would have been.
posted by handee at 5:37 AM on November 2, 2006

I thought that it was common knowledge that people who are interviewed for a piece may not be quoted much...


Not necessarily. I think that a lot of miscommunication -- hurt feelings, even -- comes from assuming others know things that they don't. Although it sounds like your actions were reasonable, you could in good conscience apologize (make sure you feel it before you write) for not informing them that there was no guarantee their material would be used.
posted by amtho at 5:52 AM on November 2, 2006

If someone had asked me a favour, and promised to tell me the outcome, I too would be pissed if I was then ignored. It is common courtesy to (at the very least) fire off a quick email to say "thanks for the help, sorry I couldn't use your material".

It will cost you little time to write an apology explaining the reasons the material wasn't used. I can see this is a fairly honest mistake, and they probably will too, though if that doesn't satisfy them, there isn't much else you can do.

Note they aren't pissed just because you didn't use their stuff - it's because you didn't reply to them, and maybe they felt they were mislead. If you don't want to piss off more people, keep your promises and try not to give misleading impressions, you'll be dandy.
posted by MetaMonkey at 6:02 AM on November 2, 2006

You might want to respond and explain what you have said here. Unfortunately, the editors aren't going to be the ones these people will blame, it will be you. Your reputation is at stake here so you shoould try to appease them. Try to make peace, ask for their forgiveness, and if that doesn't work then call it a day and move on.
posted by JJ86 at 6:04 AM on November 2, 2006

As a full-time reporter, I get e-mails like these all the time, along with a wide assortment of other complaints that I was unfair, wasn't positive enough, etc. I'd say I respond to about half of them, but I always wait a day so I can respond with a clear head.

My favorite stock reply is 'thank you for your feedback' and an explanation of what might have led to the error or omission, such as editing for space, etc. I will sometimes also outline how I will mitigate the mistake, such as running a correction, or a follow-up brief with important ommitted material.

If they're especially rude, as these people seem to have been, I might add a little condescension, such as 'thank you for your carefully-worded response to my story on...'

I only apologize if an actual mistake was made. And if they continue to e-mail or criticize me, I just ignore it.

Whatever you do, don't do anything that will result in them taking their complaint up the chain of command. Though editors often defend their reporters to a fault, they don't want to deal with freelancers, or reporters even, that repeatedly make readers and sources unhappy. Rule of thumb: never write a response that you wouldn't want your editor to see.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 6:11 AM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites]

Send a nice apology explaining the situation. Yeah, you may never see them again, but it's a global world now, so it's entirely possible they'll mention your name or some such. and it's the decent thing to do.

So respond nicely and professionally and consider all of this a learning experience.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:11 AM on November 2, 2006

Thanks for all these responses, it's very helpful to hear a variety of opinions and get a look at the other side of things.

I have to admit that my main resistance to replying comes from the tone of the email. I get the feeling that I'm going to get more rudeness in response, which I really don't need. I guess that most people, including myself, don't respond that well to confrontation. I didn't see the final piece myself until late last night, and I wasn't near a computer again until receiving this email, so I'm not really sure what else I could have done - I feel that they were pretty quick to fire off their email. Not everyone sits in front of a computer all day at work.

But I'm probably just making excuses for why I don't want to reply. I now feel cross and slighted as well. I will sit on it for a bit and then rethink it.

Thanks again everyone for the points of view, my question was answered with these very helpful comments.
posted by different at 6:12 AM on November 2, 2006

I agree with what's been said so far: It would probably be best to email them, thank them for their contribution "which, if not attributed directly, helped contribute to the piece." You might explain what most people in the media business already know -- you gather far more information than is ever used, and some of the material is excised during editing if need be.

I do a lot of interviews, and you'll get a whole range of reactions, from a whole range of people -- some media savvy, some not. If you interview someone who probably hasn't been interviewed before, it's a good idea to cover some of the ground rules with them. People are incredibly naive about how stories are written, and some folks just like to complain.
posted by jzb at 6:22 AM on November 2, 2006

If someone had asked me a favour, and promised to tell me the outcome, I too would be pissed if I was then ignored.

Me too, and I the fact that "this happens all the time" is irrelevant—it doesn't happen to them all the time, just the jaded reporter. You may get to the point where you're as blasé about it as M.C. Lo-Carb!, but while you're still capable of imagining how civilians feel, I suggest you treat them as fellow humans rather than annoying drones who have served their purpose. Apologize. Don't grovel, and yeah, don't say anything that might get your employers involved, but say you're sorry you wasted their time and effort. If their e-mail was snippy, it's because they were justifiably annoyed; you might be snippy too in those circumstances. I know I would.
posted by languagehat at 6:29 AM on November 2, 2006

I talk to the press a lot as part of my job. I recognize that I won't always get a quote in the piece, but I'm happy to cultivate my relationship with the reporter. I want them to use me as a source.

Also, FWIW, reporters rarely follow up to tell me that the piece has run. They are too busy. It's up to me to look out for it. (Google alerts help).

If you told them that you would circle back to them and then you didn't, you could apologize for that. Also, if your work with them was more in depth than is typical in an interview with a reporter, e.g. if you sat down with them and spent several hours going over material, etc, then they might feel that they've been misled.

Otherwise, I'd just explain to them that their specific quotes didn't match the needs of the piece but that the time they spent with you was very valuable and appreciated, and that you'd like to keep them in your rolodex for future stories. If they say "no" to that then they are stupid and not worth your time. Find other sources.
posted by alms at 6:34 AM on November 2, 2006

I don't think your interviewee's email is rude at all. Blunt, perhaps. To the point. If you told them you were going to tell them when the piece ran and then you didn't then you deserve much harsher words for breaking your promise. At the same time, it doesn't surprise me that the journalists in the thread (yourself included) do consider it rude. Journalist seem to have a hard time separating their own understanding of the writing process from that of the people they use.

How should you respond, you ask? Apologize for breaking your word, the same way anyone else who breaks their word should. Your profession doesn't exclude you from common courtesy. At the same time, I highly doubt you'll sound sincere. Your not contacting them about the piece going to print looks deliberate because you didn't use anything they shared with you. You asked for their help, used them, and then when it wasn't in your best interest to continue the relationship (even though it wasn't complete), you ignored them rather than send a 5-second email. Yes, yes, business as usual.
posted by dobbs at 7:33 AM on November 2, 2006

Dobbs: You asked for their help, used them, and then when it wasn't in your best interest to continue the relationship (even though it wasn't complete), you ignored them...

Oh, believe me, that goes both ways.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 8:03 AM on November 2, 2006

I thought that it was common knowledge that people who are interviewed for a piece may not be quoted much, if at all, but perhaps I should start telling people that in advance.

I'm a photojournalist, but I think this advice holds for all journalism. Usually when I'm done taking down names of people in the photos, somebody says something like, "Did you see that! We're going to be in a magazine/newspaper!" or "So when will this come out?", at which point I explain that I'm taking a lot of pictures and trying to get a feel for the whole scene; I might use your picture but my editors have the final say and half the time I don't know what picture gets used. The subjects usually end with something like "Oh, I know how that goes..." If I think it's a great picture that I've got of them, I'll usually follow up by saying that I'm going to try hard to get them in the publication. There might be a little more time involved in interviewing somebody, but not always, and often people feel more vulnerable being photographed than questioned; I've yet to have a complaint, though I don't know if it's due to this tactic of handling subjects.

You may also try telling the people that their interview material may not have been directly quoted but was instrumental in forming the structure of your piece or your own understanding of the subject, if that is indeed the case. Often spending time with somebody documenting whatever they're doing helps quite a bit in my approach to whatever picture gets published in the end. It's small consolation for the subjects, but if they trust in you it might allay the criticism.
posted by msbrauer at 8:09 AM on November 2, 2006

That's not a hostile email, judging from the ones I've gotten.

Apologize for not letting them know when the story was, thank them for their time, tell them you'd like to call on them again.

Unless you'll never cover that subject or market sector again you cannot afford to poison a well - especially as a freelancer.

Also seconding many others: New sources must get the "how stories come together, you might get left out" 30-second explanation. It's only fair to give them a chance to huff off and not talk to you if there's even a small chance their words won't appear in print.

Most people will talk to you anyway, and then everybody knows what the deal is.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:16 AM on November 2, 2006

Oh, believe me, that goes both ways.

No doubt. And when the man on the street posts to Ask about the "rude" email he got from a journalist after breaking his word, I'll post the same "Have some pride in your word; get some manners" response. Until then, I hardly see how this point is relevant.
posted by dobbs at 8:22 AM on November 2, 2006

Is this true?

You promissed to notify us when and where it would be printed and haven't heard anything from you since...

If so, then you do owe them an apology, at least for that (even if the situation was out of your control). You made a promise and didn't keep to it. Simple.

I agree that it's common for stories to be cut, and I would expect most people to know that, but when I think about it a minute, I realize that many people have never been interviewed. They may just not know the process. So they may be really taken aback that you didn't warn them.

That's not exactly your fault, but if I were you, I would apologise for not making things clear.

I guess I'm sort of "old world," but I agree with those who say it takes three minutes to write a quick apology. You should do it. You never know when you'll need to interact with these people again, so just from a selfish p.o.v, it's not a great idea to burn a bridge over something trivial.

I would write something like this:

Dear X, it was a pleasure to talk with you the other day. I'm sorry that I didn't give you a heads up about the article. I was very busy and only found out about it at the last moment.

And I know it's really frustrating to spend time answering questions and to feel like no one cares about your answers. Please know that I appreciate the time you spent. Unfortunately, in my business, writers don't have the final say as to what appears in their articles. I regret that I didn't warn you about the editing procress.

Best Wishes,
posted by grumblebee at 8:55 AM on November 2, 2006

Coming into this late, but I'll echo a lot of what people have been saying. It's a fact of life in journalism that you'll need to talk to more people than you'll actually include in the article. It's not bad planning, it's not rude, it's good journalism. Whether just backgrounding the issue, or getting a variety of perspectives, it pays to talk to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean they get a guarantee of inclusion in the final article.

In that situation, I wouldn't apologize, since an apology, I've found, is generally an invitation for more abuse from a disgruntled reader/source/crank. (That's not to say don't apologize in situations where you've genuinely screwed up; that's just rude). I'll also echo the suggestion of a brief thanks for the feedback, and a quick explanation of the news process (feedback was valuable, helped me understand the issue, limited space, editorial trimming, etc.), if the source genuinely seems not to get the journalist-source relationship.

However, I've found that a certain minority of PR/communications folks will whine, complain, browbeat and try to shame a reporter into using their stuff. It's possible they're trying to work an apology into a guarantee of a quote or story in the future. This tends to be more common in smaller outfits, or where the PR people are ad-hoc, and not very well-trained. And as with everything else in journalism, it seems, the least important, least significant organization, with the least to say will be the most paranoid, controlling, rude, manipulative and generally headache-inducing. In a case like that, I'd drop all contact with them, unless its central to a story. That sort of BS is best ignored.

And, the golden rule of dealing with angry people in a newsroom: the 'editor' excuse. Be as understanding and agreeable as possible, and let them know that the decision is not your's (the reporter's) to make, rather it's an editor's decision, and if you like, they can take their concern to him. In every newsroom I've ever been in, the editor's job is to listen to this sort of concern, and when possible, back up his reporter. And they've been happy to do it. And most people don't actually want a solution, they want to vent. City editors being the grizzled, angry people they are, are generally not going to put up with a heck of alot of pointless blustering.

And to those who have responded that the reporter's conduct is rude, or that he's broken some sort of unspoken agreement by not including the source's info, I'll kindly disagree. While the poster should have let the source know when the article would have been printed (or not made such a promise, since a reporter very often doesn't know when an article will be printed), there's nothing rude about not using the information. It's important to remember is that a journalist-source relationship is not a customer-service relationship. A source freely gives information to a reporter, full stop. The whole point of having an independent press is that a reporter can investigate an issue, talk to as many people as is practical, and write the complete and accurate picture of the event or issue. Notice there's nothing there about guaranteeing a source good placement, or quoting everyone you talk to, or putting in a plug for every company's pet product because they talked about a related issue. You don't buy information from sources in exchange for making sure they're quoted.

And of course there are practical issues to consider. First, the source may have send in barely coherent ramblings that are more advertising copy than interview. If that was the case, then it's the source who's wasted both their own and the reporter's time. Second, a reporter is often working multiple projects throughout the day, with dozens of calls and emails and interviews to handle, not to mention actually writing the piece, and god forbid, dealing with breaking news. Freelancer's time commitments are if anything, more stringent, especially if they're working a staff job on the side. The unfortunate fact of life is that there often isn't time to contact every source every time everything happens with an article. In a perfect world, yeah, you'd talk to every source five times a day with up-to-the-minute updates on the creation of an article, but sadly, few reporters have the luxury of having enough free time to do so.
posted by Eldritch at 9:07 AM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

I've been both an interviewer/backgrounder and the subject of interviews.

As an interviewer, I state up front that I may not use anything I get from a specific source, that the story is still being written and will have to make it through editorial control.

That said, if I promise to get someone an advance copy, I get them an advance copy. You would be astounded at how incestuous the media world can be, and shutting a door that you can leave open is a mistake.

The note reads like someone who feels as though their time has been wasted. As a freelancer, I would recommend a note back to them that says that you appreciate all of the time they invested, and that the information they gave you was invaluable as background information, but that due to space constraints and editorial control, you didn't get to use all of the great information they sent you.

The goal here is to soothe ruffled feathers, and create a warm fuzzy feeling that they remember if your name comes up again.
posted by dejah420 at 9:22 AM on November 2, 2006

PR person here. I think the response you got is common from people who aren't used to dealing with the media.

I would not apologize but I would acknowledge the note. It sounds like these people will not be a valuable source to you in the future (you mentioned that what they provided you was a bit nutty) so I wouldn't be concerned about preserving the relationship.

In the future, don't promise to update your subjects on air/publication dates. If you know something at the time of interview, pass it along but the ball should be in their court for tracking this stuff.

I will add that many people have unrealistic expectations when dealing with the media. When I hear someone complain about how a 30-minute taped interview ending up only as a three-second soundbite, I just look at them and think, "Have you never watched a news program? Picked up a newspaper? Where have you ever seen a news story covered that way?"
posted by Sully6 at 9:35 AM on November 2, 2006

I talk to the press occasionally. I also sometimes talk to students about the same topics. It seems that 90% of their questions are the same. More likely than not, though, it's the student that sends me a follow up thank you for taking time to answer their questions and doing them a favor. A little "customer service" goes a long way.
posted by Staggering Jack at 10:04 AM on November 2, 2006

"Usually when I'm done taking down names of people in the photos, somebody says something like, "Did you see that! We're going to be in a magazine/newspaper!" or "So when will this come out?", at which point I explain that I'm taking a lot of pictures and trying to get a feel for the whole scene; I might use your picture but my editors have the final say and half the time I don't know what picture gets used."

Oh, Christ yes. When I'm reporting on ANYTHING and get asked about when it'll run, I always go with the "Man, I don't even know. Hopefully sometime soon, but I don't have any control over it." Especially troublesome is a place that I work for regularly that holds articles in a hopper, sometimes for years. I never have any idea if things have run or haven't, and I never keep straight in my head what all's gone in. After all, if I've gotten a check for my work, I have to admit that I don't really care when it runs so long as nothing's out of date.
But yeah, I get these things all the time. It's like, "Sorry, your answers were crap/ I was told to write 1500 words and only 750 ran/ I had no idea that the article even came out/ I turned it in months ago and still haven't heard anything..."
It beats "I'll fucking kill you the next time I see you," though. (Which I got for a POSITIVE review that wasn't "positive enough.")

Cordially reply— feel free to be honest about the answers not being what you were looking for, and that you'll keep 'em. And I'd blame the editors for the lack of notice ("I didn't know it'd published myself.")
And, speaking as someone who also edits, I've had this come up fairly regularly and never once failed to back a writer. As an editor, I feel like I can pretty much tell people who want to complain about whatever random vagaries of journalism that they can eat a bucket of cock if the coverage isn't to their liking (though I'm generally more polite).
posted by klangklangston at 11:19 AM on November 2, 2006

Yes, as others are saying, I've for years been in the habit of letting people know that a.) I don't know when the story will run; b.) I don't know if they'll be in it; and c.) I don't know how much space my editors will allocate to it.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:37 PM on November 2, 2006

I think about it a minute, I realize that many people have never been interviewed.

Yeah, like 99.999% of humanity. Why on earth should people be expected to "know the rules"?

I would not apologize

Why the hell not? Did you enter some program where each apology gets deducted from your salary? The sense of superiority and entitlement among professional hacks journalists is stifling. Unless there's some reason to think the complainant is just being a jerk, which there isn't in this case, say "I'm sorry your time was wasted" and learn to prepare people better the next time.
posted by languagehat at 1:22 PM on November 2, 2006

if you promise you're gonna do something and you don't, you apologise. that's a simple rule of civilised behaviour. i don't think journalists are exempt, do you?
posted by londongeezer at 1:50 PM on November 2, 2006

In response to languagehat: in this specific situation, the original poster made a serious mistake in promising the source that he'd tell them when the article went to print. Simple practicality means that promise will often be broken, and many times its not the reporter's fault. And if anything, he should apologize for making that promise when he couldn't actually deliver on it. But it's clear from the message, they aren't angry about not being told when the article is coming out (which would have been reasonable), they are angry about not getting the placement they wanted in exchange for taking the time to respond. That is simply unreasonable.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: when a person agrees to be interviewed by a journalist, they do so without the ability to influence how much of what they say is used, or in what context it is used, as long as the reporter uses it correctly and accurately. If a person only thinks its worth their time to agree to an interview if their quotes are guaranteed to be used, then they really, really shouldn't agree. Because there is the very real possibility that it won't.

It is an unfortunate truth of being a reporter is that in the search to accurately convey the truth of a situation, you (very, very) often have to deal with people who are exceedingly nasty, for lack of a better term. Many reporters deal with a truly staggering amount of verbal abuse, threats, and ultimatums. And unfortunately, many reporters unfortunately learn that to apologize even though you've done nothing wrong (as is common in customer service industries), can and does lead to people harassing you, demanding recompense for their perceived slights, and generally causing serious headaches. An admission of guilt will cause many people to redouble their efforts to take out their pound of flesh.

This is what I was trying to allude to in drawing the distinction between customer service relationships, and journalist-source relationships. The publicity garnered by a mention in a newspaper article can be enormous. As such, journalists often have self-interested people making ridiculous demands, cajoling, threatening, etc, in the hopes that the reporter will simply take the easy road and write a fluff piece about the source's interest. And it happens. A lot. But down that road leads to a serious lack of ethics and generally crappy reporting.

Reporters have to deal with a staggering amount of crap from people on a daily basis, and they do it in the service of telling the truth. And in today's business climate, they're often doing it under truly unbearable working conditions and workloads. So I'll respectfully disagree with your almost-characterization of journalists as 'hacks.' It's that sort of casual insult, and orders of magnitude worse, that gets thrown in a reporter's face every day. And at the end of that day, a reporter has to smile, make amends, and do their best not to burn bridges, because they'll have to talk to them again the very next day.

Which is why I suggested a polite email thanking them both for their feedback, and for their time, and explaining the unfortunate circumstances that will lead to someone's interview not making it into a final piece.
posted by Eldritch at 1:56 PM on November 2, 2006

Just for those who keep telling me I'm going straight to hell for apparently 'breaking my promises' - I notified the other interviewees that the piece was appearing as soon as I got to my desk today. In a weekly paper, I honestly don't see what is so terrible about being informed of publication just a few hours after it happens. The others have thanked me - but then, some of their quotes were used.

Yes, I found out twelve hours beforehand. But I do have a life, and it's not like I was deliberately not telling anyone. I was literally on my way out of town when I got a copy of the publication.

Anyway thanks for the other feedback. I'm not a journalist BTW, so those of you with apparent chips on your shoulders towards journos might like to keep that in mind.
posted by different at 2:00 PM on November 2, 2006

If you're writing for publication and quoting people and stuff, then you're a journalist. (You may not be a very good one, or a fully employed one, however.)

Speaking as a journalist (a good one, or at least an employed one), the highlighted answers got it mostly right. The cardinal rules, as I see them, based on experience:

1. Never promise anything. Ever.
2. Never, ever apologize. It's not your fault, so don't take the hit.
3. A nice, short email response is fine. But avoid it with #4.
4. I go overboard at the start of every interview explaining that the article may (1) never be published, (2) their quote may never make it in, (3) once I turn the article in I have no control over what happens to their quotes. The only thing I do guarantee is my own integrity -- meaning, I won't purposely misquote them.

And then I keep my notes and a digital copy of the interview for a year after publication. (Also, there's the issue of libel insurance, but that's a 200-level course.)
posted by turducken at 3:49 PM on November 2, 2006

Reporters have to deal with a staggering amount of crap from people on a daily basis,

I don't know what planet you live on Eldritch, or what jobs you've had in your life, but if you think Journalists are the only profession who need to eat shit and remain cordial, it ain't the same one I'm on. Your post makes you sound like an ass who thinks Journalists don't have to obey the same moral code as everyone else.

If you make a promise and do not keep it (for any reason whatsoever), you need to apologize. It doesn't matter if you're a journalist, a garbage man, or the pope.

In a weekly paper, I honestly don't see what is so terrible about being informed of publication just a few hours after it happens.

What's so terrible about it is that it's not what you said you'd do. Simple as that, really. The frequency of your publication is irrelevant. If you knew that it wasn't possible to tell the interviewee prepublication, you shouldn't have said you would. Don't blame them for your incompetence or presume that your excuse should sit well with them just because it sits well with you.

And no one said you're going to hell. I think people are just surprised that not only are you attempting to make it sound like it's okay not to keep your word, you're condemning people for being upset that you didn't keep it, as is their right to be. Christ, numerous people have pointed out something you should have learned when you were 5: don't break your promises, and yet you're still acting as if you're above common courtesy.

But I do have a life

As does everyone. Your excuses are your own.
posted by dobbs at 5:44 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is getting tiresome, dobbs. I told them I would tell them when it came out. I did not break any bloody promises!

*yawn*
posted by different at 4:41 AM on November 3, 2006

dobbs, at the risk of further derailing the thread, I'll point out that my comment about the abuse reporters take made no mention of what other professions may have to deal with. I was merely taking exception with languagehat's casual gibe, and pointing out that the reporters do not, in fact have the luxury of the pervasive "superiority and entitlement" that he paints them with; in contrast, they have to go out of their way to remain polite and agreeable.

Perhaps you should read the posts before slinging personal insults, however. But I'll reiterate the advice I've given: apologize for not notifying them of the publication date, but realize that is not what they are upset about. Thank them for their time, thank them for their input and information, and explain to them the newsroom circumstances that lead to a source's information not being quoted.

But thank you for your feedback on my post. I appreciate your time and the perspective you've given has been important in forming an accurate picture of the situation. Unfortunately, because of space constraints and the inevitable editorial decisionmaking, yours was not included in the comments that add meaningfully to the discussion. I hope, however, that in future we can continue to correspond. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesistate to respond.
posted by Eldritch at 5:08 AM on November 3, 2006

It is an unfortunate truth of being a reporter is that in the search to accurately convey the truth of a situation, you (very, very) often have to deal with people who are exceedingly nasty, for lack of a better term.

If you think referring to reporters as "hacks," a term they use themselves, is being "exceedingly nasty," you are exceedingly thin-skinned; no wonder you feel you're constantly under attack. The only thing that would satisfy you is for everyone to strew rose petals under your feet while telling you constantly how brilliant you are.

Reporters have to deal with a staggering amount of crap from people on a daily basis, and they do it in the service of telling the truth.

Wow. I didn't think that level of self-righteousness and self-deception was even possible any more. "Telling the truth," huh? If that's what reporting is all about, I must be getting media from some other solar system.

And here's another glorious exemplar of the working press weighing in:

Never, ever apologize.

And you wonder why people hate the press?
posted by languagehat at 6:11 AM on November 3, 2006

languagehat, 'hacks' is certainly far from the worst thing people have called a reporter, which is what I meant by 'orders of magnitude worse.'

I never implied that reporters are due any special treatment or courtesy, I was merely explaining the unfortunate situation they often find themselves in. But the contempt you have for people who do the work of journalism is unfortunate. I do, indeed, feel that 'telling the truth' is the central job of the vast majority of working journalists.

And I think it's a convenient dodge to paint the press as self-righteous or terrible. Don't get me wrong, media outlets leave a lot to be desired, and I'll never claim that journalists aren't wrong sometimes, and hard to deal with at other times. (Much like most everyone everywhere, I'd think.) But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. (my particular area) has a robust free press, one that puts out a truly impressive amount of information on a daily basis, that helps inform public knowledge of a variety of events and issues. So perhaps I may be guilty of a certain amount of idealism when I use the turn of phrase "in the service of telling the truth," but that describes very accurately the scores of working journalists I've known who work incredibly hard to do the best job they can at accurately informing people of important issues.

But don't let that get in the way of uninformed bashing. The media is such an inviting target, isn't it? I heard all politicians and lawyers are evil, too.
posted by Eldritch at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2006

Don't get me wrong, media outlets leave a lot to be desired, and I'll never claim that journalists aren't wrong sometimes, and hard to deal with at other times.

OK, since we're being reasonable, I should say that I admire reporters as a group—collectively, they are indispensible at ferreting out facts that those in power would love to keep hidden, and democracy can't really function without that. And I'm sure most people go into the trade with high ideals about getting the truth out. But every trade has associated personality problems; either it attracts a certain type or the conditions of the job reinforce certain traits or (usually) both. Arrogance is a trait common to cops, lawyers, surgeons, and (yes) reporters. Cops know they're protecting the public, lawyers know they're protecting the public's rights, surgeons know they're saving lives, and reporters know they're getting the truth out. And none of them feel they get enough respect. So they develop a finely honed sense of importance and self-righteousness that very easily slides into "fuck you, I don't have to operate according to the rules or say I'm sorry, because I'm doing important work." Naturally, this kind of attitude puts people off and they don't respond with respect and affection and the cycle gets reinforced.

So no, I don't think reporters are evil, and I respect the work they do. But I think anyone who tells someone else he'd do something and didn't do it owes that person an apology (not an "Oh God I'm awful, I should just kill myself and have done with it" apology, but an "I'm sorry your time got wasted" apology), and I think a response like "Never, ever apologize" (not your response, I realize) is stupid and self-defeating and makes people dislike you. Just because you're doing important work doesn't exempt you from the rules the rest of us live by.
posted by languagehat at 9:07 AM on November 3, 2006

"But I think anyone who tells someone else he'd do something and didn't do it owes that person an apology."

By this do you mean different owed the person placement in the article because he interviewed them? (I am asking this unsnarkily.)

I think if different is to be faulted for anything it is (1) not telling the person he interviewed that it was possible the material might not be used and (2) offering to let them know when the article would run.

I think in both cases different made the wrong assumptions--that the interviewee understood how sources are used and that notifying someone within a day of an article being published was sufficient.

I said upstream that a note to acknowledge the e-mail was appropriate but I didn't think an apology was called for. This was based on my experience working with reporters as a PR person.

Sometimes the information I provide helps shape the story but I get no attribution, sometimes I'm quoted and sometimes nothing I provided makes it into the story and perhaps even the story takes an angle that I fundamentally disagree with.

But in cases where I'm not exactly pleased with how the story comes out I've never expected an apology from the reporter for not using my stuff or not using my stuff as I intended. (Certainly, I would if there were some ethical lapse or significant error, of course.)

I guess I just don't think a reporter or editor should apologize for using their judgement to shape a story.
posted by Sully6 at 9:33 AM on November 3, 2006

By this do you mean different owed the person placement in the article because he interviewed them?

No, of course not. I mean that since he omitted the requisite Miranda warning ("Anything you say may or may not appear in the finished piece..."), he did say he'd "notify" them in advance, and he didn't in fact so notify them, he owes them an apology. Yes, it's a common situation (which is why the Miranda warning shoud be automatic), and no, it's not a grievous sin for which he should do penance, it's just a normal bit of politeness that some people seem to have an inexplicable allergy to. Look, when I've been kept waiting on the phone for ages ("Your call is important to us... your call is important to us...") and a live person finally gets to me, I really appreciate it when they apologize for keeping me waiting. Is it their "fault"? No, it's the system, they're just a cog in it. Do they "really" feel sorry? No, and they shouldn't, they didn't do anything wrong. They apologize because they know I've been holding the phone for a while and probably getting irritated, and they're letting me know that they're aware of that and that they wish I hadn't had to wait, and I appreciate it. I imagine a lot of the hostility Eldritch faces comes from people who've been on the receiving end of the "never apologize" attitude. People appreciate politeness, and even busy reporters can spare a moment to be polite.

This was based on my experience working with reporters as a PR person.

Well, surely you see that your experience as a PR person is completely, utterly different from other people's experiences? Of course you know the score and you aren't surprised when things aren't used and so on. All due respect, but that's pretty irrelevant here. Ordinary people don't know the first thing about how reporters work, and why should they?
posted by languagehat at 11:07 AM on November 3, 2006