knowledge furnished by
others. The value of this is apparent at once. Next to first-hand
knowledge, second-hand knowledge will serve admirably.

Every newspaper and magazine in the world uses this method because its
readers' first query, mental or expressed, of all its informative
articles is "Is this true?" If the author is merely repeating the
experience of an acknowledged expert in the field under discussion,
the value of the interview cannot be questioned. In this case the
resulting report is almost as good as the original testimony or
statement of the man who knows.

The first requisite, therefore, of material gathered in such a manner
is that it be reproduced exactly as first delivered. The man who told
a woman that a critic had pronounced her singing "heavenly" had good
intentions but he was not entirely accurate in changing to that
nattering term the critic's actual adjective "unearthly." The
frequency with which alleged statements published in the daily press
are contradicted by the supposed utterers indicates how usual such
misrepresentation is, though it may be honestly unintentional. The
speaker before an audience must be scrupulously correct in quoting.
This accuracy is not assured unless a stenographic transcript be taken
at the time the information is given, or unless the person quoted
reads the sentiments and statements credited to him and expresses his
approval.

Signed statements, personal letters, printed records, photographs,
certified copies, and other exhibits of all kinds are employed to
substantiate material secured from interviews and offered in speeches.
If you notice newspaper accounts of lectures, political speeches,
legislative procedure, legal practice, you will soon become familiar
with such usages as are described by the expressions, filing as part
of the record, taking of a deposition in one city for use in a lawsuit
in another, Exhibit A, photograph of an account book, statement made
in the presence of a third party, as recorded by a dictaphone, etc.

The first danger in securing material by the personal interview is the
natural error of misunderstanding. The second danger is the natural
desire--not necessarily false, at that--to interpret to the user's
benefit, the material so secured, or to the discredit of all views
other than his own. It is so easy, so tempting, in making out a strong
case for one's own opinions to omit the slight concession which may
grant ever so little shad