Email interviews are boring, and worthless. Sorry folks, but if you don't want to be misrepresented, do a better job interviewing. What you THINK you said, and what you said are very different.
"... Email interviews are boring, and worthless ..."
... but more accurate. It's hard to mis-quote someone in writing (a good reason to use email). Maybe the boring bit your talking about is the lack of physical contact between the interviewer & interviewee giving the writer less chance to interpret and make insights that can lead to writing a more entertaining piece.
From the interviewee standpoint, fact is far more important than spin or fiction. From a reader point of view, facts mixed with entertainment (& possible spin) maybe what they expect. But I ask myself, "what do I want to get when I read about something, I really want to know "hard information" about?" - the facts? impressions or entertainment?
I'll settle for the dry facts & any entertainment in the way of humour or language is nice, but secondary.
Huh, that depends on what you're looking for, I guess. In a live interview, you can be asked a question you weren't prepared for, and if you lose composure even a little it doesn't matter what the truth is nor what your answer is, what people will remember is that you got flustered. With email, you can relax and take your time.
I was referring to the experience as a reader - emailed interviews and the stories that result from them are usually boring and formulaic, and don't differ much from a stock press release.
