A Look Back at Interviews

In compiling the list of 2008 interviews I also did a quick analysis of the interview procedures over the past three years. It isn't good from a time management standpoint.

Fourteen interviews were published in 2006. There were four other sets of interview questions sent out that did not come back. I will take responsibility for two of those -- arrangements were made too close to the relevant election in one case and in the other I was too slow in getting questions out. The other two just didn't send the questions back with answers. So out of 16 question sets sent out, 14 came back. That's not really bad odds.

It was a little different in 2007. I sent out six question sets and five came back, a much lower percentage.

This year it got worse. I sent out eight question sets and five came back. Clearly the trend is against me.

Unless I am extremely familiar with the person being interviewed it takes eight to 10 hours to research the candidate / official / whomever to come up with relevant, intelligent questions. That's a lot of time, and it's wasted when those questions go unanswered.

The basic process is that, once there is an agreement on an interview, I compile and email questions. After six or eight weeks I send a reminder email, with two more reminders at three or four week intervals. After that I assume there was a breakdown in communications somewhere or they've changed their minds or the campaign just became too crazed time-wise and good intentions fell through. I haven't posted the names of people who stiffed me for interviews; it's not my way.

It might be easier to just sit down with people and ask them questions in person but that really isn't feasible for someone who writes under a pseudonym. And, personally, I like to see the longer answers that usually come through on email. Also, that provides a transparent view of the candidate's answers, without me as a filter (other than obvious spelling errors what you see is what I was sent). It also makes me uncomfortable to try and interpret someone else's thoughts. Journalists are trained in that; I am not.

The gist of this rant is that someone is going to have to be awfully convincing as far as their ability and interest in returning answers before any more questions go out. The interviews are fun and I enjoy doing them, but it just isn't an effective use of my time when so few people respond.