To do or not to do an interview

Old school journos are horrified at the state of modern information-gathering in the media. There`s no more skulking around in the dark and harassing public figures outside courtrooms. It`s all a lot more civilised in this age of public relations officers or consultants or whoever it is that is the public face of a public face.

Confused? Sadly, we are too. Journalists these days - especially those in the ICT industry - have to follow a chain of command so there is hardly an opportunity to use the clich'ed "straight from the horse`s mouth".

The relative ease of electronic media seems to have sapped the personality out of any source. An e-mail here and SMS there is the medium of choice. Journos frequently have to toe the corporate communications line or risk losing the news lead.

Step one is to contact the PR agency, whose immediate response is "please can you stick that in an e-mail as we need it in writing". Hmm, wonder if Deep Throat passed notes under the stall door!

I wish for the old days when a large sponge-and-spit-covered microphone could be shoved into the face of whomever it was we needed a few quotes from.

Bhavna Singh, junior journalist, ITWeb

Step two is to use all the creativity and calm we can muster to draw up a list of appropriate questions in an e-mail and the send button does the rest.

The problem with this is that it is anyone`s guess who the e-mail is being sent to, regardless of the intended recipient. Although a colleague did, just the other day, get a direct response via SMS. Impersonal to say the least, and in the time it took the government official to type it while driving to the airport, he surely could`ve screamed it into the headset. But then, how would he delete the slip of the tongue, often more honest, response we seek?

What we writers have gathered is that the PR first forwards the questions on to a company spokesperson, who then drafts a response, which is politically correct and sprinkled with "PR fluff".

Often the list of questions we so carefully compile is deemed irrelevant since many of them remain unanswered, glossed over by what the company decides is relevant. It cancels the "investigative" completely out of the equation.

The response then seems to do the rounds within the walls of said company, before some brave soul lends his or her name to the signature and like a lamb to slaughter, vouches for the words of the spokesperson.

So, forward number four is back to the PR, who then forwards it to us, "the media".

The five-man forwarding process may take anything from two days to a week and by then the point is lost since the moment in question has passed and possibly passed on!

Editors don`t take kindly to the words "I`m waiting for a response" but what are we to do if the media is no longer allowed to actually speak directly to the company? Transparency has become frosted glass.

Any PR will tell you in a huff that all responses are to pass through them first. Heaven forbid you should complain about the long waiting period, rivalled only by the lines at Home Affairs. You are promptly once again told to stick it in an e-mail. It takes cut and paste to a whole new level.

I wish for the old days when a large sponge-and-spit-covered microphone could be shoved into the face of whomever it was we needed a few quotes from. Nice and immediate and worthy of the "extra, extra, read all about it" that could be heard echoing through the streets.

Diluted over the course of time, there`s nothing extra and barely anything to read, as the red tape has strangled any chance of public outcry.