Published by the Public Affairs Section, American Center, 24 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 (phone: 23472000), on behalf of the American Embassy, New Delhi.
Contact us: editorspan@state.gov
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
Interviews are best conducted face-to-face, provided the interviewee has time and is located in the same city as you are. Face-to-face interviews are important and preferred when the story has to go in Q and A form. The next best option is a telephonic interview, especially when the person you are interviewing is in another city or country. This often poses problem due to differences in time zones or if the interviewee is traveling. It is in these situations that reporters conduct interviews over e-mail. So, first of all, e-mail interviews save time. You can get to the interviewee directly-cutting through the clutter of PR agencies, secretaries, etc, provided you have the personal e-mail ID of the person. Nowadays, most people in top positions use BlackBerries, so e-mails can be replied to using mobiles as well.
Secondly, the interviewee gets time to formulate his or her answers and you may get better quotes. And most important, the reporter has a written record of what the person has said so the chance of denial later on is minimum. Another plus is that reporters don't have to transcribe interviews!
But the biggest disadvantage is that a reporter has no chance of asking instant supplementary questions, as would happen in an in-person interview. To some extent, this can be overcome by sending follow-up e-mails after the first set of replies have come in. It is always helpful to mention in the very first e-mail that you may send supplementary questions, if the need arises. Also don't send a long list of questions in the very first e-mail, because the interviewee could get discouraged and may not answer you at all or provide one-line answers which may be useless. It is better to send supplementary questions in any case.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
The Internet search is a great tool to do background checking of your source. You can practically know everything about the person-from the school the person has attended to books he or she has published. You can see where the person has been quoted in media and what he or she is saying. I most often deal with scientists, so I find out about their academic background, their research interests and papers published by them. This kind of a background checking is a must. But this is only part of the preparation. It may happen that the interviewee has moved to another institution, company or country and his web records might not have been updated. That's why it is best to establish telephonic contact at least once. Usually I do that after I get the replies, so that you can ask supplementary questions or get clarification on some points. Sometimes, small queries can be sent as text messages on mobiles, if you think it is not prudent to disturb the person over phone or if e-mail reply is going to take time.
It is strange how things have changed over time. Earlier people used to say "come and meet," then they started preferring advance questions sent over fax, and now even when you call people say "send questions over e-mail." But in some areas, especially when you are dealing with government officials in India, e-mail option does not work. Most often, your queries land in the secretary's e-mail box, a print out is taken, put in a file and presented to the boss. Replies, if given, follow the same route. This happens even in the case of so-called tech savvy institutions such as IITs.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
One has to be very cautious with e-mail quotes and interviews. You don't know who is answering at the other end. It could be the PR guy, a junior colleague or personal secretary. Sometimes people tend to recycle their replies from their old articles, speeches, interviews or research papers. So, it is always a good practice to mention how you are going to use the replies-as a Q and A, as quotes or just as background information. If it is a Q and A, you have to exercise abundant caution. It is a good practice to take a couple of quotes from the replies you have got and crosscheck on the Internet if you are being dished out old stuff or PR handouts. With experience, you can make out if the replies are genuine or recycled. You have to use your professional judgment all the time.
What do you think of using other new technologies for reporting? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter?
A number of new technologies are being used by reporters in day-to-day news gathering as well as by people who deal with the media across various sectors. In addition to e-mail for formal interviews or getting quotes, reporters maintain informal contacts with their sources through instant messaging options such as Google chat, Skype and social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn. Blogs have become a major source of information and news these days. International organizations hold virtual briefings and news conferences in which you can participate. Web press conferences and live telecasts of important meetings are very useful. Even if you have missed an event, entire proceedings are available in video files on the Internet. The biggest use of new technologies in news gathering is accessing high resolution, print quality pictures. Many international and national agencies make available such pictures to news media through password protected Web sites or exclusive URLs created for emergencies or special occasions. This helps overcome problems of sending and receiving heavy image files over e-mail. But the traditional professional rules of checking authenticity of source-be it information or pictures-should be applied while using new technologies all the time.
Utpal Borpujari, special correspondent, Deccan Herald
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
Positives:
a) The interviewee can give detailed or short replies (depending on the requirements of the interviewer) at his/her own time-of course, within the deadline requested by the interviewer.
b) There is no chance of any person being misquoted. And facts and figures can be provided in detail by the interviewee.
c) One can think of additional questions even after an interview is through, in case there is a requirement felt.
d) You can interview people even in other continents without spending any money-I think this could be an important aspect in recessionary times!
Negatives:
a) One cannot depend much on e-mail interviews for hard, daily news which are often done against a steep deadline.
b) You never get to talk to the person being interviewed, which robs the interviewer of giving a personal touch to the subject-it becomes a mechanical Q&A.
c) You can never do sensitive stories based on "sources" and "off the record" information through e-mail interviews, for obvious reasons.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
While doing an email interview, it is a must to ascertain the source-and a verification of the mail ID is a must, and though it may not be possible to call a person always for this purpose, it is advisable to the maximum possible extent. A brief telephonic chat before sending the Qs is always better.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
I have not heard any cautionary tale as yet on this. Personally, I interviewed Brendan I. Koerner, author of Now the Hell Will Start over e-mail to get a very interesting story sometime back. This book is on a black Armyman during the Second World War, who was sent to construct the Stilwell Road (also called the Ledo Road) connecting Burma and India, and how the biggest manhunt of WW II was launched to nab this man after he had shot a white superior. A superb book which has not been launched yet in India, I read about its launch on the Internet, and searched for the author's e-mail id, and then contacted him through mail to interview him.
What do you think of using other new technologies for reporting? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter?
Use of new technologies are always welcome-who could have thought of use of computers for writing out stories and dispatching them even 20 years ago, but now all journalists do that even in remotest parts of the world. There was a time when the typewriter was the "must" instrument for reporting. In that sense, any new technology or mode is welcome, as long as it helps in faster and accurate dissemination of news.
Govind Singh, executive editor, Amar Ujala
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
E-mail has definitely empowered journalists. It's a very important tool which provides us access to people and places which were not accessible via other means. Many times people holding high positions are not accessible but they do not mind answering questions by e-mail. This helps us in getting their version of the story. But as Internet accessibility is low in India, it cannot be very dependable.
But this is only an additional tool and cannot replace the full-fledged real time interview. The whole environment/ambience cannot be created with this. We cannot ask cross questions and the person may not give us off-the-record news and offbeat comments. Sometimes we know many more things about the person being interviewed by meeting him. He/she also gives various hints/related information which is not possible in e-mail interviews.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
Generally I take e-mail interviews on two occasions:
A. When the person is located at a very distant place, where e-mail is an effective tool to communicate, and I already know the antecedents of the person. Sometimes I verify this through multiple Web sites or know about him or her from books, friends or other sources. But I verify.
B. I contact the person, he is very busy or somehow hesitant to talk to the press and asks for a questionnaire. And for me too it is essential to get his version. Then I use e-mail. In this case I call the person after getting his view.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
I have not faced any problem so far in e-mail interviewing. I have found it a very useful and effective tool which has improved my efficiency. On many occasions, I could not have taken an interview or got a story from a very distant place, it was possible only through e-mail. I have used this tool maximum in my day-to-day activity. We have been getting stories on the same day from USA, Pakistan, Australia or other countries. I can't imagine I could have done my job so quickly without this great tool.
What do you think of using other new technologies for reporting? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter?
I have been using chats, instant messaging to get stories from my freelance writers/reporters. I have not used Twitter so far.
Padma Rao, chief of South Asia bureau, Der Spiegel
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
The positives are speed and convenience. The negatives are-as with all interviews not conducted in person but via phone, fax, etc.-that the "color" surrounding an interview partner, his expressions, et al-go missing. To me as a journalist, these remain supremely important, so I try to avoid e-mail interviews as much as I can. Also, e-mail still lives in a "gray zone"-and outside the realm of legal permissibility in many countries. So if there is a dispute, it could allow the interview partner-or the journalist-to disclaim what he said /wrote.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
I always do. In any case, I use e-mail only as a last resort and when I know the person well enough and my concerns as described in my first response above, are addressed.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
No.
What do you think of using other new technologies for reporting? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter?
Mixed feelings. Technology is a tremendous asset for journalists, but I still believe that the best and most in-depth reportage emanates from personally visiting the venue or person-and armed with nothing other than a notebook and pencil in hand. (Though tape recorders are quite handy!)
Ranjita Biswas, editor, Trans World Features
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
E-mail provides scope for interviewing people who are not in the same locale, or too busy to respond to phone interviews, or are more comfortable writing down their answers. When I cover stories with an all-India perspective, e-mail interviews have been of great help.
However, I personally prefer in-person interviews if I have the option. Spontaneous questions follow responses which is not possible in e-mail interviews. Besides, a rapport (or opposite) while doing an extensive interview can be developed only from meeting in-person.
Phone interviews facilitate a "voice" no doubt, but sometimes words may be missed out, or the interpretation may go wrong. Saying that, I often interview people over phone but it is more to get quotes or clarifications, not extensive interviews, unless I know the responder personally.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
Usually I try to locate the best person to get a comment from a particular department or who has the expertise in the field. Next, I try to find the phone numbers, e-mail ID (the journalistic fraternity is a great help), authenticate the source, and ascertain first whether he/she is willing to respond after introducing myself and the publication for which I am doing the story.
If a story contains critical data/information, I may send it back to the source for double-checking but that happens usually with phone interviews. E-mail interviews eliminate that hazard and also provide a better protection if someone suddenly retracts a statement. I save all the responses till the story is out or even for later reference.
I usually contact the source after publication of the story and send the link across as a matter of courtesy.
What do you think of using other new technologies for reporting? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter?
New technologies are always welcome. But as far as I am concerned these "instant" methods are inadequate for my kind of writing, mainly features.
Tejeesh Nippun Singh Behl, assistant editor, Business Today
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
An e-mail questionnaire allows the interviewee time to reflect upon his/her replies and consequently, cover up any inconvenient truths that might have been shared during a phone interview or a face-to-face meeting. That said, e-mail interviewing comes in handy when time is in short supply and travelling to meet the interviewee is not possible (especially if the said person is overseas). From personal experience, I can say that if the subject is non-controversial and is more of a report on new happenings within an organization or industry, an e-mail interview could do the trick but where there is the slightest chance of uncovering something hidden from public domain or if the story is a personal profile, then an in-person meeting is mandatory. Of course, sometimes, when one has met the interviewee on earlier occasions and is familiar with him/her, an e-mail interview could work for a one-off story, provided it's not made a habit.
Positives of e-mail interviews: Quick, easy, clarity in responses, cost-saving especially in these times. Suitable for stories where in-depth reportage is not required.
Negatives: Impersonal medium, allows the interviewee to assess his responses and consequently delete any unsavory facts, not conducive to investigative reportage or profile- based features. Also dubbed as lazy journalism by some!
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
Yes, certainly. You do need to call the person and inform him/her of the subject of the story before sending in a questionnaire. As far as precautions are concerned, one needs to second guess responses to certain questions and add counter queries in the questionnaire. Other precautions are similar to the ones followed for in-person interviews where responses need to be cross-checked for factual accuracy through independent sources.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
None that I can recall-in fact personally, have forgone e-mail interviews where an in-person meeting was mandated as no point in doing a half baked story.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
Haven't really tried Twitter but as far as text messaging goes, can be used for supplemental information, I feel, rather than conducting a full interview. Just too cumbersome!
Kushan Mitra, assistant editor, Business Today
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
I generally avoid e-mail interviews as they completely lose any sense of spontaneity and seem like you get prepared statements shoehorned into the answers. So much so that I have not done an e-mail interview in years. However, e-mail follow-ups or e-mailing advance questions to people I might be meeting, or when I need a statement from a company is acceptable. I genuinely feel that as a journalist, e-mail "interviews" are a sham where you get prepared PR statements. Where e-mail also works is getting through to a new company to identify yourself, particularly abroad. But then again, I feel that e-mail has to be backed up with a phone call, or several phone calls depending on the urgency of the story unless the response is prompt and will suffice-somehow on that front I feel Western companies are far more adept than Indian companies.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
Unless I am doing a follow-up or sending an advance questionnaire I avoid e-mail, not because I'm a Luddite, far from it, but e-mail does not work that well, unless the person in question is known to me and someone who answers their own e-mail. So I would send "indicative" questions or even a line of questioning, something I'm not terribly fond of doing-interviews need to have a life of their own-strait-jacketing them ruins them and that is what e-mails do. I consider myself a fairly good interviewer, and to get that rapport going with someone requires meetings, or at least voice communication unless I need one quote or something. Follow up questions for "facts" can also be avoided if you know where to go to find them, unless the person has promised you something. I do follow up interviews with a thank-you e-mail occasionally, but that is about it.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
Single-source reporting is dangerous and highly unprofessional whether that source is a conversation or an e-mail. Yes, e-mails from "sources" have been useful but e-mails can be maliciously sent and unless you understand why you received an e-mail, it can be damaging to you or the person you wrote the story about. I do care about libel laws even if most of my peers don't know what libel means apparently.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
Strangely enough, Web chat as a medium is possibly better because of its instantaneousness, Twitter is only as powerful as your follower-base and how much fellow Twitterers "respect" you. Text messaging depends, I do text quite a few industrialists, but those are rarely work related-like texting Vijay Mallya commiserating him on the failure of Force India to score points in Shanghai. Work? Depends. If I want to call someone who might not have my number, I will text him first identifying myself and pray that the person reads my publication and has noticed my byline and calls back.
Latha Anantharaman, freelance writer based in Kerala
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
The positives are that we have exact quotations. The people who are being quoted have had a chance to look at their responses and one feels confident that they have had a fair opportunity to present their views. I feel this is especially important when we are asking technical questions and we don't want to dumb down the answers and possibly misrepresent the views of experts.
Occasionally when someone wants to interview me, or just give an opinion on a single issue, and asks whether I would prefer a phone or e-mail interview, I prefer e-mail, because I feel I would be quoted more accurately. I am expansive and chatty in my replies.
The disadvantage is that many people are nervous of putting something down in writing. Sometimes on the phone or in person one gets excellent quotations and opinions "between" the responses. So an interviewer gets a chance to draw out a person.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
I would like to phone the person once and clarify which address I should send the questions to. Otherwise, a secretary or assistant or colleague could answer and we wouldn't even know. I always send a follow-up e-mail, even a simple thank you, so as to reduce the chances of such a proxy response.
If it is a person in an institution that I need an opinion from, then I get that e-mail contact by speaking to at least two people in the institution. Usually it has been government or public sector department offices. The e-mail addresses given over the telephone through the switchboard are almost always more accurate than those got from Web sites.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
No I haven't.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
No, I think I haven't made that leap and am not likely to make it for a while. The advantage of e-mail is that it can be long or short as the subject warrants. I do not yet take text messaging and Twittering seriously, possibly because of my lack of familiarity with these modes of communication, but also because I don't feel people will give reliable responses to serious questions through this medium.
Jayita Bandyopadhyay, deputy editor, news, MiD DAY
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
An interview should be like a conversation. There should be free flow of thoughts and queries. When that doesn't happen, the true essence of an interview is lost. The best is to meet a person and then interview him or her. We don't always speak just with words. There is a lot we express through our body language, facial expressions and our voice pitch. A celebrity may say "no comments." But the way it is said expresses a lot.
A telephonic interview may still include the nuances of the voice but an e-mail interview gives out nothing. In fact, At times, it even takes away from the actual mood of the conversation.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
I never send out questions till I am sure I have got the right e-mail ID. I first speak on the phone and then e-mail questions. Also, once the interview is done, I call or SMS to thank the person. That helps me authenticate the person's identity.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
No, I have never had a bad experience with e-mail interviews. In fact, once I had interviewed a politician and he wanted to later deny something he had said. Thankfully, I had the e-mail to prove my point.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
E-mail is bad enough. The rest I wouldn't want to try. But I have done a sting story on GChat. I fooled a celebrity into making a controversial comment. But that's not true journalism!
Sushanta Talukdar, special correspondent, The Hindu
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
Positives about e-mail interviewing are:
No chance of misquoting or quoting out of context
The person interviewed gets ample time to respond and come out with concrete and articulated answers, supplement the answers with additional information, statistics, etc.
The time that is required after phone or in-person interviews to listen to the tape or going carefully through the notes and then writing down the responses of the person correctly, can be saved in e-mail interviewing.
Negatives about e-mail interviewing are:
There is no scope for impromptu supplementary questions which often help bringing out interesting quotes during in-person or phone interviews.
There is no scope to ascertain if the answers have been given by the person interviewed himself or herself or if those were prepared by someone else for him or her.
There is no scope to know the person's mood, interest, concerns, taste which are revealed by the ambience of his home or office during in-person interviews.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
I always call the person before and after sending the questionnaire to ensure the e-mail ID is correct…. I also call the person, whenever possible, to confirm if it was sent by him or her and not by someone else who might have had access to the questionnaire sent by me.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
I have come across several instances of e-mails of some of my close friends being hacked and received a couple of misleading e-mails originating from known e-mail ID in my address book which were not sent by them but by the hackers. Hence, I take extra caution while using e-mail for reporting.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
Instant as well as text messaging, Twitters are also useful tools for reporting and to be on the track of a developing story.
Suhail Anjum, correspondent, Voice of America, Urdu Service
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
The positive aspect is that the interviewer does not have to go to the person to do the interview. He/she sends a questionnaire and gets the answers. The interviewed person has the flexibility to type out the answers at his or her convenience and mail it back. It is convenient for both sides. The interviewee can conveniently reply in brief or in detail, depending on the situation and mail his or her picture as well. One of the negative aspects of e-mail interviews is that it limits the questions. A direct or face-to-face interview allows new questions to emerge from the answers. Such interviews generate quite a few secondary questions. A direct or face-to-face interview has a wider scope while an e-mail interview is restricted. Another negative point of an e-mail interview is that you do not see the facial expression and body language of the interviewee, nor do you hear the voice to have a more clear idea of the thoughts, feelings and emotions the answers carry. However, in a telephonic interview you can create secondary questions out of the answers and you know the tone, pitch and emphasis.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
Before conducting an e-mail interview it is advisable to seek the interviewee's consent on telephone, by e-mail or through some other means. It is good to inform that person about the nature of the questions to prepare him or her mentally for replying to the questions that would follow. The interviewee should be contacted after getting the answers once again, to thank him/her for the cooperation and to clarify ambiguities in the answers.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
It is good to preserve the interviewee's e-mail because sometimes he/she can deny having replied to a particular question or replying to it in a particular way. A telephonic interview also has the same limitation, but an audio or video interview is more secure in this respect.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
Instant message, text message and SMS are the new media of communication. TV channels are utilizing SMS extensively to get immediate feedback from viewers or to conduct instant polls. However, these are inadequate for comprehensive interviews. It also requires more time to type out the message. The new language evolving for this purpose will make it possible to send more messages in fewer words. This new language is the shorthand of our time. Several companies are taking advantage of the emotions of the youth and allowing SMS free of cost after every recharge. Young people are utilizing it to the hilt. However, I think it is still inadequate for a proper interview.
N.B. Nair, executive producer, NewsX News
What are the positives and negatives about e-mail interviewing as opposed to in-person or phone interviews?
The advantages are that it is quick, detailed and irrefutable. But the disadvantages are the interviewer has the opportunity to fudge details, if he chooses so. Since he has the time at his/her disposal, it may not be spontaneous and natural.
When doing an e-mail interview, what precautions do you take about knowing the source? For example, do you call the person before or after? Why or why not?
It is always ideal to check the authenticity of the person over telephone and take his mail ID if the interviewer is not known officially or personally. But never take interviews of unknown persons without verifying his/her credentials.
Have you got a cautionary tale about e-mail use for reporting, or an anecdote about a story you could only have gotten through e-mail?
Nothing of that sort.
What do you think of other new technologies like instant messaging, text messaging and Twitter for reporting?
Newsmakers or news providers can alert journalists about an impending event/development or give snippets of news, which can be followed up by details on mail. This is increasingly being employed by spokespersons of different departments of the Government of India these days. They alert journalists about breaking news and follow up with details on mail.
Sujoy Dhar, correspondent-East India, Reuters
Necessity is the mother of intervention. E-mail interviews are here to stay because it is an option that emerged out of necessity. Imagine the present media scenario in India. Journalists jostling in press conferences for bytes and quotes. Celebrities, top officials, cops at the receiving end of your calls and demands for appointments. It is rightly a media circus in India and the situation will only worsen in the coming days. The proliferation of news channels, magazines, dailies and other publications is inexorable and so all available sources of communication should be explored by a journalist. So I am all for e-mail interviews. That does not mean I want to avoid meeting a source in person-that is still my first priority and ideally that is the way it should be. But I find it extremely convenient to get interviews of people on e-mails who cannot find time to speak over phone instantly or whom I cannot always meet in person or get an appointment.
I see more positives of email interviews but first the negatives. I think unless you hear or see a person reacting to your questions you cannot always convey the spontaneous responses of your source. So an email interview is less intimate and perhaps less spontaneous. But at the same time it is far more authentic and accurate. You have the conversation in writing. There is no way you can misquote the person. It often makes our jobs easier. To my knowledge, so many Bollywood star interviews these days are generated through emails. As a print journalist I think I must try to paint a picture when I write a story. So my skills as a writer are tested when I turn an e-mail interview into an interesting, readable piece.
What precautions do I take or I suggest for fellow journalists? Well, I would simply not go for an email interview unless I am sure that I have landed the right person. It is one of the rudiments of responsible journalism and so if you are in this field it is expected that you are equipped with the minimum professional skills. Here I must say that replies from the official e-mail IDs of a person are more welcome. They lend credence to the authenticity of the interviews/information. Above all an e-mail interview ideally should follow a short telephonic conversation with the concerned person or his or her authorized representative.
I am also all for using SMS as a source of information. For the past two years there are so many stories on farmland agitation and violence in Bengal that generated after SMSes were circulated by their sources. A PR firm in Kolkata would regularly send us statements of a certain company through SMS.
Dinesh C. Sharma, science editor, Mail Today 
Utpal Borpujari, special correspondent, Deccan Herald
Govind Singh, executive editor, Amar Ujala
Padma Rao, chief of South Asia bureau, Der Spiegel
Ranjita Biswas, editor, Trans World Features
Kushan Mitra, assistant editor, Business Today
Sujoy Dhar, correspondent-East India, Reuters