this timeliness is the reason for printing a
certain man's statements, the reporter's account must indicate that
timeliness near the beginning. That is, the first sentence of an
interview story must not only tell who was interviewed and the gist of
what he said, but it must tell why he said it. The interview must be
connected with the rest of the day's news. This comes out very
definitely in the custom which many newspapers have of printing the
opinions of many prominent men in connection with any important event.
Perhaps it is because we wish to know their opinions on the subject or
perhaps it is simply because we are glad to have a chance to hear them
talk--at any rate many editors make any great event an excuse for a
series of interviews. This is illustrated by the opinions of the various
labor leaders that were printed with the story of the recent confession
of the McNamara brothers. In such a case, the reporter must make the
reason for the interview his starting point in the report and must
indicate very plainly why the man was interviewed.

This idea of timeliness is very often carried to the extent of making
the interview merely a denial or an assertion from the mouth of a
well-known man. There may be an upheaval in Wall Street. Immediately the
papers print an interview in which some prominent financier denies or
asserts that he is at the bottom of the upheaval. Naturally the report
of the interview begins with the very words of the denial or the
assertion. Very often a man when interviewed refuses to say anything on
the subject. The fact that he has nothing to say does not mean that the
interview is not worth reporting. In fact, that refusal to speak may be
the most effective thing that he could say. The reporter begins by
telling that his man had nothing to say on the subject and ends by
telling what he should have said or what his refusal to speak probably
means,--if the paper is not too scrupulous in such matters. At any rate,
the denial or assertion or refusal to speak becomes the starting point
of the report and furnishes the excuse for the interview story. The
expanded remarks that follow the lead are of course important but they
are not so important as the primary expression of opinion that the
reporter went for.

The personal element in interviewing may be carried to an extreme
extent. The man who is interviewed may so far overshadow the importance
of what he says that the report of the interview become