racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

Do you have an interview policy? Some people adhere to no-interview or limited-interview policies, and it makes sense. Whenever you hold interviews, there is always the tendency for you to be misquoted, taken out of context, or worse, for the publication to put words into your mouth, so to speak. Sometimes you say something, and when the interview gets published or aired, it seems you’re saying a different thing altogether.

You also can’t blame writers for injecting their own perspectives on interview content. They have their own agendas, and they have their own views, too. Whether the interview is for a feature article, news-oriented, or research, there is still the tendency for your words to be minced, cut, ground, mixed, and matched until it comes out as a different meatloaf altogether. You’re simply a resource person after all, unless the feature is actually about you. Of course, you also cannot blame a reporter or talk show host for reading what’s on the idiot board.

Thoughts on the Mel & Joey interview

For example, when I was interviewed as a resource person on problogging by GMA 7’s Mel & Joey talk show (video here) the segment producer and I chatted for about two hours about how I started with problogging, how to earn from blogging, and why problogging could be an ideal way to earn for Filipinos. The end result was only about a minute’s worth of footage, out of about three and a half minutes for the entire segment. You would think that my message would have been cut down, but in fact, in some ways, the segment actually took my words out of context.

At least that was kept to a minimum, in my case. Apparently, another interviewee, fellow Filipino problogger Abe Olandres had it worse. The show seemed to have blown things out of proportion. Abe tells me that the show had mis-quoted him for saying he earns $5,000 a month from pro-blogging, when his explanation was that out of a survey he made, pro-bloggers could make anywhere from x amount up to $5,000 per month, and that he earns from a lot of different things aside from blogging.

Problogging sensationalized and dummified for TV

The way the segment presented problogging, it sort of sensationalized and dummified problogging and other online means of earning, such that it seemed to me as misleading even. Here are some points.

The segment seems to have been stuck in the stone age in their concept of blogging, in that blogs were defined as online diaries. Blogging has evolved. I can define blogging as anything from writing online journals/diaries, to sharing expert views and opinion, to viral marketing, to personal publication of news and opinion. The way blogs were presented as being online diaries might give the wrong impression that you can earn big bucks simply from writing about your personal life. Yes, it could happen, and it has happened, but I can say this is the rare exception rather than the rule.

The segment called problogging a raket, which in the vernacular pertains to something that a person does as a sideline, or when someone is moonlighting, or some means of living that is not really taken seriously. It’s a diminuitive term. Closest English term I can think of is doing odd jobs or running a fly-by-night business operation. Sadly, this is something that people from this culture of ours regard entrepreneurial actvities, especially grassroots ones. If you treat any business or profession as a raket you aren’t taking it seriously, and it you won’t reap the benefits. Do any undertaking with passion, and you’ll be sure to reap the rewards soon enough, whether it be monetary or otherwise.

Prof. Jaime Jacob was quoted as saying this business is ideal for the underemployed, unemployed and retired. OMFG! You mean to say problogging is not a good means of earning for those gainfully employed? I beg to differ. When I was working in the corporate world, part of my responsibilities was to blog, and to develop our blogging platform. Most prominent probloggers I know are not really earning full-time from problogging, but they get the respect from their audience by being prominent professionals in their respective fields, too.

Frankly, I don’t think you can count on problogging to make ends meet if you’re not gainfully employed (or if you don’t at least have an alternative stream of income). One needs to invest time, effort, and even money to start in this business or profession. I’m sure Prof. Jacob didn’t mean it to come out this way; perhaps he has been mis-quoted as well.

The segment highlighted that blogging can be a good means of earning for the 33 million unemployed population of the Philippines. I can say that only a very small minority of this 33 million has access to equipment needed to start and maintain a blog, and even a smaller subset of this would be able to have the skill, patience, and connections to successfully earn well from blogging. Wouldn’t you think so, too? As Abe mentions, it could take you up to two years to start reaping the benefits of blogging, money-wise.

Sure, you can always apply for writing positions on blog networks (and I can help you with that), but it’s just like applying for any job, where you do have to meet the expectations in terms of the skills and reliability as a writer. And if you intend to launch your own blog for purposes of earning income, you have to treat it as a business. You really need to invest time, effort and money, and you’re not even assured you would break even (a failed business venture it would be).

There seems to be a notion that blogging is a good fall-back, say if your job or business can’t give you enough resources. To the contrary, it is when you’re blogging for income that you need a fall-back, just in case you need extra funds for, say, those times the ad revenue isn’t that good, or the network writing assignments aren’t that numerous.

Of course, I can understand that the point behind the Mel & Joey segment on problogging (and the entire episode) was to inspire people by showing them that there are many ways to make a living aside from working the regular white- or blue-collar grind. However, what I’m trying to point out is that it’s not child’s play. It’s also like any job or any business—you need good foundations and the right attitude in order to meet your expected returns and rewards.

What’s a good interview policy, then?

I’ve basically ranted about the interview not coming out as expected. But at least from my perspective, it’s a better interview than others I’ve had before (such as the father’s day interview in 2006 where I was called a yaya; no offense to caregivers, but I’m my kids’ father, so don’t you think it’s stupid to call me their yaya too?).

I think a good interview policy would be this: to insist that whenever you give an interview, it has to be shown or published in full, and that you can also post or publish the interview on your own blog or site in full. This would be to avoid being misquoted or being taken out of context. Of course, this may not always be possible in television shows, and in this case, it would be a good idea to ask the interviewers to give you a copy of the entire recording, so you can publish it yourself (maybe after the television airing). If it’s an email interview, insist that the entire question and answer exchange be published. If the writer were to construct an article out of your responses, insist that you see the draft first before the writer submits or publishes it.

This way you could minimize those instances where you can be misquoted or taken out of context.

I also have something in mind about quoting policies, too, but that’s for another post. I’ve rambled on long enough here.