E-Media Tidbits

Yesterday I got interviewed by my local paper, Boulder's Daily Camera, for a forthcoming feature on business blogging. Just now I mentioned that in a posting on my weblog. Then I saw new posting from PR maven Steve Rubel, "The Era of Transparent Media Interviews," and it got me thinking. ...

More and more, journalists interview people who have their own weblogs. When a reporter interviews someone, the assumption is that, as long as the journalist has properly identified him/herself, anything the source says is considered on the record unless there is a specific, overt agreement otherwise.

But does that tacit agreement work in reverse? That is, as a blogger being interviewed by a reporter, could I also consider the content of the conversation (including the reporter's questions and description of the story plan) on record for the purposes of blogging? Hmmm .... That seems fair and just to me, personally, and in keeping with my belief that journalists are not a special, privileged class. However, the quandary of whether interviews are mutually on record perhaps would be handled best by Poynter's ethicists.

For now, here's what I intend to do: The next time I'm called for a media interview, I'll establish at the outset that I consider both sides of the conversation to be mutually on record. If the reporter has issues with that, we'll negotiate as warranted before proceeding with the interview. Similarly, since I'm also a journalist, when I interview sources I will make a point of asking if they have their own site or weblog, and whether they're intending to write about the interview. I will consider the whole conversation mutually on record unless otherwise specified. We'll see how that goes.