Email Interviews - Is it ever an OK idea?

E-mail interviews suck because it eliminates your ability to ask those on the spot follow-up questions.

 

I write books, primarily, and am often asked by journalists/bloggers/students/other writers to comment upon the subjects I have written about - usually a couple times a month.

 

I've gone the e-mail route a few times with the GM of the team I cover. He's not generally that accessible otherwise. It's usually just been asking for comments on a player for a feature I was writing. Works well. It's not brain surgery in this case.
The one question I would ask is this: I often see quotes from people, followed by ..."so-and-so said an an e-mail respeonse." Do you have to add that? Can't you just say, ..."so-and-so said" without revealing it's an e-mail? What difference does it make?

 

Because you can't really be sure the person wrote it. Even if you know it's the guy's email, he could have had some PR flunky write or edit the response for him.

 

A big reason I insist on adding it, and having reporters add it, is because the quotes used are so obviously written instead of spoken.

 

Used one recently. Local athlete was overseas, didn't bring his cell because of roaming charges, but was checking email from his hotel. I got all that info from his coach, who was still home.

I emailed the athlete, got what I needed.

Still, the athlete and coach are people I've dealt with a thousand times over. So I trusted it was him.

 

If it's the only way to get it done, then yes, I'd go with it. I wouldn't rely on it, and I would exhaust all of my other options first, though.

 

Echoing what everybody else here said.

Email, like war, should only be used as a last resort. And it should generally only be used with people you know and know well.

GM of the team I cover communicates almost exclusively in text messages. So imagine THAT in print: "Thought draft was gr8, but we'll c. lol!"

 

I favor pre-emptive e-mail strikes.

 

Some prominent sports figures prefer email because they can answer whenever it's convenient for them instead of being tied down by a phone appointment over which they have no control anyway.

If my choice for a Jack Nicklaus interview is having him answer 4-5 questions via email or not getting him at all, I take the former every time. No question.

 

I understand what you're saying, Ace, but if you know a guy well enough, as I do this guy, you can be certain it's his own words. When I've thanked him for his responses (on the rare cases he shows himself), he knows exactly what I'm referring to. But it's a good point. All good points. Except the bad ones.