E-mail can be e-fficient
but not always e-ffective

E-mail is the latest step in the evolution of yelling.

I like my newsrooms boisterous and bustling. In my 14 years as a reporter, the vehement reporter-editor arguments I participated in and witnessed must have numbered in the thousands.

Granted, raised voices are not always rational voices, but they show the competitiveness, passion and guts that every newsroom needs.

Furthermore, a let-it-all-hang-out argument has the advantage of immediacy. In minutes, the combatants clear the air so they can move on to the real substance of their disagreement.

Ahhhhh, but now we are in the e-mail age. Loud is out. Instead of voices that clang together like cymbals, silent electrons lurk in sterile inboxes, awaiting taps or clicks that reveal discontent.

I have never warmed to e-mail.

An editor called me recently to ask one question. Instead, we talked for probably 15 minutes and covered three or four topics.

At the end of the conversation, she said, “I started writing you an e-mail, and then I thought, ‘This is silly. Why not just call?’”

Had she continued with the e-mail, I would have answered her original question. But we almost certainly would have stopped at that one topic. That would have been oh-so-efficient: a two-sentence question, maybe a four-sentence answer (I am wordy), perfect.

Except … except her question, it turned out, had more facets than either she or I first thought. In the phone call, she shaded in background she almost certainly would have left out of the e-mail, and in response, I got to use some of my justifiably renowned anecdotes.

Then, in a perfectly natural progression, we moved along to related topics. We probably wasted a few of those 15 minutes on small talk, but when the call was over, I sensed that we not only resolved problems, but also understood each other better.

Another editor I know is having trouble with a reporter. They are clashing over substance (the reporter’s stories are weak) and personalities (their oral arguments, the editor tells me, end up going nowhere).

In desperation, the editor, to avoid shouting, has resorted to e-mailing criticisms to the reporter.

Bad idea.

The e-mails are an evasive tactic. They’re not making the reporter better; they’re merely the editor’s way of sidestepping the unpleasantness of face-to-face quarrels.

I gave the editor some coaching on coaching and told her to stop relying on electronic scolding.
(I acknowledge that documenting poor performance is important, should some firing become necessary. However, face-to-face discussions of performance should come first, with follow-up e-mails to preserve the record.)

I recently witnessed, from a distance, a back-and-forth exchange of six increasingly angry e-mails between a reporter and a supervisor.

After reviewing their messages, I concluded that the problem between the two, although real, was exacerbated by the reporter’s inferring a threat the supervisor did not intend. The reporter overreacted, the argument turned bitter, the outcome left both disgruntled and disappointed.

I think one phone call would have prevented the misunderstanding.

Here’s a good use of an e-mail message. When an editor or reporter is angry, an instantaneous face-to-face argument (the yelling I cherish) can turn disastrous. Composing a message slows the process, allows for tempers to cool. After writing a draft, however, the angry person first should do the face-to-face, then revise the message, then send it to cement the points made in the conversation.

E-mail is not evil-mail. It can be effective.

But its drawbacks are glaring. For instance, conversation allows for immediate clarifications of nuances.

On the other hand, a colleague with whom I exchange e-mails on journalism topics often will send a short, pointed message, to which I reply with a long, sober explanation. His usual response: “Lighten up. I was joking.” His savage sense of humor means I sometimes take seriously what he means sarcastically.

The larger problem, however, is that e-mails can chip away at the newsroom partnership.

Editors and reporters don’t have to like each other, but they have to trust each other. That trust has but one bedrock principle: that both editors and reporters always put aside their personal comfort and do whatever leads to excellence in the newspaper.

If a reporter lacks the grit to disagree with an editor face-to-face, how can that reporter be trusted to stand up to a bullying source?

And if an editor is afraid to look a reporter in the eye to deliver criticism, will that editor back down when an agitated source or advertiser calls to demand some self-serving treatment?

E-mailing is comfortable.

Excellence is painful.

Agreeing is nice.

Understanding is better.

Talking is essential.

Yelling is optional.

THE FINAL WORD: Chutzpah, derived from the Yiddish, often creeps into English writing as a synonym for guts or boldness.

But the word has more meaning than that. It implies an unpleasant selfishness. A wealthy person, for example, would show chutzpah by barging to the head of the waiting line in a crowded restaurant.

Jim Stasiowski, writing coach for Dolan Media Co., welcomes your questions or comments. Call him at (775) 354-2872 or write to: 2499 Ivory Ann Drive, Sparks, Nev. 89436.

POSTED 6/4/09