Jason Calacanis, co-founder of Weblogs and a tech industry luminary, recently posted on the issue of email interviews:

A WIRED journalist pinged me for some comments on Michael Arrington and his A-list blogger status. I told the journalist to send me the questions by email and he refused.

What's interesting is what follows. Calacanis posted a BlackBerry email he sent back to the reporter:

Frankly, you need to adapt. Journalists have misquoted people for so long--and quoted them out of context that many people like to have their words on record.

I don't want someone taking half a sentence or paraphrasing me... Just too much risk.

Besides I have 10,000 people come to my blog every day--i don't need wired to talk to the tech industry.

It's an easy trap to fall into -- and one I've warned about on this blog before.  Don't repeat a false premise!

The headline of a June 22 story posted on BusinessWeek.com tells the story:

"Vonage: 'We're Not Toast'." 

Back in January, I wrote the first part of this series. I talked about the dangers of being too practiced in interview technique -- ducking and "bridging" away from issues we don't want to discuss.

Too much of this type of slick interviewing -- combined with an overly aggressive focus on sticking to one's "messages" -- guarantees that the subject of an interview will end up sounding like a typical politician. Not only is this a negative, but the interview sounds so practiced that listeners tune out and the opportunity is wasted.

Working with reporters is never an easy matter for communicators.

There's always a natural tension between journalists and PR/IR folks. The communicators want their messages to get across, and reporters don't want to be spun. Mistakes can be costly. To avoid these, I've created a list of biggest mistakes you can make with reporters. There are 15 entries.

This list is part of a multimedia effort that includes a podcast episode of Talking Communications with Farrell Kramer. On the podcast, I discuss this list with Lance Ignon, Vice President, Corporate Affairs at VaxGen, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.

Lance has been both a reporter and communications professional, and he has some great insights in this area. To listen to the podcast, simply click the play button above or visit the Talking Communications with Farrell Kramer site.

Now, for the list.

The rules of engagement for media interviews can be confusing -- on the record, off the record, background -- particularly when the matter isn't discussed explicitly.

At best this can be embarrassing  At worst it can be a disaster.  Often, it's somewhere in between. 

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that comments made by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at a social event over the weekend rocked the financial markets. 

When I first started thinking about this post, I was going to list the key attributes of a good interview.  After all, being interviewed is a key component of effective public relations.  Why not do it well?

Then, it struck me that many folks never get to the stage of actually being interviewed.  They miss out because they're simply too slow in reacting.

So here are the three A's of media interviews, much like the three L's of real estate:

1. availability
2. availability
3. availability

That's the key.  If you're going to seek our reporters to discuss the good ideas you have, then you need to be available when they call.  Whenever that is.

The "false premise" is well-known to media trainers and other speaking experts.  However, when doing a press interview or Wall Street analyst call, it is an easy mistake to make.  

What exactly is a false premise?  It is a qustion that begins with a premise that the person being interviewed might not agree with.  For example, "Why don't you like the New York Yankees?"  This question presumes that the person being questioned is not a Yankee fan, which is OK unless he or she is.

If the person being interviewed is, say, running for elected office in the Bronx, allowing this premise to persist might be a disaster. 

So, how should one deal with such a question?  Simply put, you need to dispute the premise without making the false premise the focus of the discussion -- and, thus, giving it added validity. 

Communicators have a big problem today. We've gotten too damn good at what we do.

This may sound silly, but it's absolutely true -- and a serious threat to our profession. It stems from the triumph of communications technique over the good sense to use it wisely.

Too often we see business executives and politicians interviewed on a particular topic only to duck and weave with all the skill of a bantamweight champion. Techniques we have trained into our clients -- such as the ability to "bridge" out of a tricky question or to stay relentlessly "on message" -- result in communication where very little is actually communicated.

Interview technique has become so overused that eyes glaze over, ears focus elsewhere and the very "messages" we are pounding away are lost. We know this has happened when are business clients are accused of spin and our political clients are said to sound like politicians.

When it's time for that phone interview you've promised a reporter at an important outlet, it's sometimes tempting to put several sources on the line simultaneously to assure your team can answer all possible questions.  It seems natural enough.  Don't we often have several people around a speaker phone for conference calls?

Well, yes we do.  But reporter interviews are different, and I'd recommend thinking long and hard before coming at reporters with multiple sources on one call.

The reason is simple.  It's confusing. 

Remember, the reporter may be on the phone with your folks for the first time.  It's hard enough to get to know one person on the telephone.  But two, three or four?  That is very difficult -- perhaps impossible. 

Almost everyone reading this blog works with reporters in one way or another.  We take their calls.  Pass along information.  Set up interviews.  At times, we reach out to them directly.  We do this so frequently that it becomes almost automatic.

Thus, it strikes me that it might be useful to take a step back and ask one of those 40,000-foot questions: "Just what do reporters want?"

It's far too easy -- and glib -- to respond: "They want whatever they called about."  While true, that misses the key element of the PR/news media relationship.  Reporters, and the editors they work for, want one thing above all else: good stories.  That's it.  They want good stories, defined as those stories that will make it into their publications or onto the air with the greatest possible impact.