Had a weird moment recently when I got a notice from the folks at CustomInk who are producing the Furlough Tour T-shirts. The email said that there was an issue with the content and they needed me to call because it was too complicated for an email exchange.

I figured they wanted me to sign a release or have Jenny or Heather sign one for the artwork, as it clearly was original. Instead, I got a funny lesson on copyright and trademark infringement.

The problem was that I had included the names of the schools that were part of the tour, which was a big no-no.

“Unless you have a release from each of them, we’re getting sued and you’re getting sued,” the rep told me. “We’ve dealt with this before.”

“You mean I can’t even MENTION their NAMES?” I asked.

“Nope. You’re going to be sued.”

So, with that in mind, I quickly redid the back of the shirt to only include the cities in which said universities are located. (Someone suggested I misspell the names like University of Alabanana or something. With my luck, there would be a university named that and I’d get sued anyway…)

At least I can mention these places on the blog…

XAVIER UNIVERSITY – Cincinnati, Ohio

THE TOPIC: Profile writing and reporting

THE BASICS: Profile writing requires both in-depth interviewing and some strong observations. One of the most important things is to help the readers feel like they’re right there with you as you’re spending time with this person and learning about them.

We’ve covered the issues of reporters getting in the way of profiles before, using more “I’s” than Donald Trump writing an autobiography on a cocaine bender. The first-person crutch, as I call it, is based on a writer’s inability to feel confident in their scene-setting and interviewing abilities. Therefore, they try to turn what should be a solo performance for the source into a “1980s buddy cop movie.”

One thing that helps a lot in profile writing is to schedule a couple interviews with the source, each with a different angle on what you want to accomplish. Repetitive interviews allow you to have multiple bites at the apple when it comes to fact gathering, but it also allows you to feel less awkward with and more connected to your source. (Michael Lewis is one of my favorite authors and the guy has a TON of success painting word pictures for the readers. He spends hundreds of days with his sources, like disgraced FTX mogul Sam Bankman-Fried. We don’t get that same amount of time and grace, but a couple interviews won’t blow a deadline if you plan well.)

One of the things that came up in our discussion (or maybe it was a different one on profiles this week; my brain is turning into tapioca pudding right now…) was the idea of what happens when your approach to the story you want to tell runs head on into what you’re being told in your interviews. I noted that you might have an idea of what you want to publish, but you should be open to anything when you do your interviews and not try to make the subject something they’re not.

I remember reading something a famous sculptor said about his work and how he carved marble statutes and such. He said that the statue becomes what it is when you remove all the pieces of that giant chunk of marble that AREN’T the statue. In other words, the material guides you in what this will end up being. You just keep chipping away at the topic and it will become something.

The first interview gets you the meat and potatoes of the profile. This is where you ask the big ticket questions that help you gain a sense of who this source is and what makes them tick. It’s essentially knocking the big chunks of marble off the outside edges  to help try to define what the final piece will look like. During that interview, you should listen for things that you want to follow up on, pay attention for potential secondary sources that might come up during the interview and generally figure out what you’re looking at in terms of the basics of this person.

The second interview allows you to chip away more at the piece, asking questions based on what secondary sources told you in between the first interview and this one. (“I was talking to your buddy, Bob, and he said I should ask you about the ‘Banana Split Incident.’ What was that about?”) It also allows you to dig a bit deeper into specific areas you have found that really do matter to telling the story and that define who this person is.

The third interview is where you make those final touches that provide details and nuances as the final piece comes into shape. A lot of this can be done through observations: If colleagues said this person is really kind to everyone, it’d be great to see how they treated the lunchroom staff or the custodial crew. If a best friend explained how the source has this burning desire to win at all costs, it’d be nice to see how the source operates during a board meeting or a game of cards. The detail oriented profile can really paint some amazing word pictures for your readers.

One of the best pieces a student ever wrote for me had such great detail in it, I can still remember it decades later: A guy who was going to jail in the morning was cleaning out his apartment. The sound the rug sweeper made, the “specks of food and cat hair” it picked up, the throbbing vein in the side of his head… All of it comes back to me every time I think of that piece. And not once did he say, “I’m sitting in (SOURCE’S) apartment, watching him as he cleans the place up before going to jail.”

BEST QUESTION OF THE DAY: What’s the secret to getting good interview material from a source when you want to go deeper on a profile?

BEST ANSWER I HAD AT THE TIME: The key to all good interviews is being an active listener. As is the case with most interviews, I come in with a lot of prep work and some basic questions I want answered. I do this because I don’t want to be caught short or look like I don’t know what I’m talking about. Paranoia has long been my best friend.

However, as we start getting into the interview, I’m constantly looking for moments where a source reveals something to me. I say it’s like when they open a door a crack and it’s up to me to decide if I want to peek inside. So when a source says something like, “I haven’t done that since 1983 and never plan to again,” they have given me a bit of a mystery, but they’ve opened a door that I can choose to open or ignore. Usually, the inner 4-year-old in me comes out and I’m asking, “Why?” In some cases, they’ll give me a great story that reveals more about themselves. In other cases, they might push it off with a “That’s a long story…” or say, “I don’t know. I just didn’t like it.”

Either way, at least I’m digging around.

Pay attention to what the source is saying (or what they’re not saying) during the interview and you’ll have more than a few doors to open.

NEXT STOP: University of Central Florida.