Several people left comments on the Romenesko site, including a former colleague, Linda K. Wertheimer. More than a dozen also chimed in through Facebook. Among them was Hannah Miet of The New York Times, who closed her comment with, “Person first, phone second; I’m a 25-year-old dinosaur.”

Thanks to those who agreed to be interviewed and everyone who has been sharing the post.

Everything from disgust at business practices to the influence of online culture is driving consumers away from boring brands in favor of brands with some personality. And consumers are benefitting from increased brand transparency.

This isn’t a new theme. Back in 2008, Shel Israel coined the phrase “Lethal Generosity” — the idea that companies that are more generous with information are more credible and influential and as such, can devastate their competition in the marketplace. Lethal generosity results in rising to the top not just in followers and engagement, but in search results as well. Sharing information freely means sharing the flaws along with the good stuff – usually counterintuitive to corporate lawyers.

Let’s be real: things go wrong all the time. Brands that open their kimono, admit fault and work to fix the problem will engender good will and trust among consumers. Why? Human nature dictates that people have a hard time genuinely connecting with, being close to, or really trusting other humans who appear to have no weaknesses, flaws or mistakes – and the same holds for brands.

Letting the Goodness Shine Through

Those brands that work at sharing information and giving back to their communities – even if they have a flaw or two – are most likely to succeed in earning the trust of consumers. Take TangoTab, a Dallas-based startup that enables consumers to find and redeem specials, events, and exclusive offers at their favorite restaurants.

Now available in 12 U.S. markets, TangoTab shares deals through its website, mobile alerts (iPhone, iPad and Android platforms), Facebook, Twitter and email. Offers are available in real time. For example, if a restaurant recognizes that Tuesday is a slow night, they can create a limited time offer that morning for a free appetizer between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., controlling the offer, quantity and when they can expect the traffic. Just imagine walking down the street and getting a mobile alert for a deal nearby –- reserving and redeeming it immediately.

According to Andre Angel, CEO, TangoTab has encountered a few issues with redeeming of online offers, software glitches and other ‘flaws.’ However, the fact that his company has a very visible social conscience keeps people flocking to the site and restaurants signing up.

“The best part is that by redeeming these free offers through TangoTab, you are joining in the fight against hunger,” said Angel. “Each time an offer is redeemed, TangoTab donates a meal to local food banks and hunger-related charities. When you eat, they eat.”

Angel is committing a full 20 percent of TangoTab’s gross revenue to help attack the hunger problem in the U.S. No flaw there. Just awesome.

By now more than enough people have weighed in on the Time magazine cover that shows a Los Angeles woman breastfeeding her nearly 4-year-old son. The reaction was predictably mixed, but let’s focus instead on motivations. The stated reason for the photo was to illustrate a story on attachment parenting, which advocates extended breast-feeding, sleeping in the same bed with children, and carrying them in slings. Another reason for the photo could have been the slow decline of American news magazines. But is either an adequate reason to go too far?

Courage and ‘Emblematic Images’

The other reminder about going too far came with the death on Thursday of Horst Faas, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for his photographs of wars in Vietnam and Bangladesh. Let’s let his New York Times obituary take it from there:

As celebrated as his own work was, the photographs that came to be most closely associated with Mr. Faas were two that he selected, as an editor, for transmission around the world. Because of their graphic nature and the unwritten rules of conventional journalism, neither might have ever been more than a dot on a contact sheet in a drawer. Instead, they became emblematic images of the tragedy of the American involvement in Vietnam.

The first, taken by the celebrated photographer Eddie Adams during a surprise insurgent attack on Saigon in 1968, showed a South Vietnamese official, his pistol at arm’s length, executing a captured Vietcong soldier at point-blank range. The second, taken in 1972 by the South Vietnamese photographer Huynh Cong Ut, known professionally as Nick, showed the aftermath of one of the thousands of bombings in the countryside by American planes: a group of terror-stricken children fleeing the scene, a girl in the middle of the group screaming and naked, her clothes incinerated by burning napalm.

“The girl was obviously nude, and one of the rules was we don’t — at The A.P. — we don’t present nude pictures, especially of girls in puberty age,” Mr. Faas said in an oral history recorded in 1997 for The A.P.’s corporate archive. Nevertheless, he set his mind on “getting the thing published and out.” The photograph won a Pulitzer.

Missteps Damage Brands

Horst Faas knew exactly where the line was, but with both photographs was determined to cross it in the interest of describing in as much detail as possible the suffering that comes with war.  Conversely, Time magazine chose to be deliberately provocative for a cover story about parenting styles. Is it any wonder the reaction was at least partially negative?

There’s a danger here too, one that anyone involved in advocacy should keep in mind: that is further damage to Time’s brand, diminished as it is from so much online competition. Sure readers might take notice; there might even be a bump in subscriptions. But what will be the effect long-term?

Most likely the public will see an effort to push the bounds of good taste in the interest of marketing. That’s not something that can sustain a brand. The focus has to be on the content, whether you’re putting out a magazine, editing photographs, or delivering any kind of information.

The fact that the two photographs from Vietnam have become iconic is proof that Horst Faas was right to go too far. He had a good reason, and he delivered compelling content. What about Time? Does anyone think that cover will go down in history? Will people even remember the story?

That can’t be true, I thought. Newsrooms couldn’t have changed that much since I left them in September after 26 years. But just to make sure, I asked a dozen working journalists for their thoughts. Their responses make clear the phone interview is not dead, and why that’s a good thing for good journalism as well as good public relations.

Like an in-person interview, a telephone conversation offers an immediate exchange of information, and, more importantly, understanding. A reporter can ask questions and the interviewee can respond. Ideally they can continue until they understand one another’s positions. The telephone allows for a level of detail, clarification and nuance not possible with other electronic methods.

That’s vitally important for PR people, who want reporters to have the best possible understanding of their position. They want to be able to steer the discussion toward the stronger aspects of their story and away from the weaker ones. That’s possible on the telephone, which has other benefits: It can be used to provide very basic background, and both sides can better tell when they’re being deceived.

Of the dozen journalists I reached out to, all but one who responded did so in enthusiastic defense of the phone interview. And while most feel it’s in fine health, a couple worried about its future.

‘Everything’s Scripted’

“In Washington, you get people in person or you get them by email,” said Jessica Meyers, the new transportation reporter at Politico. “There’s not much of a conversation where you call up and chat.” The capital’s pace is a factor, according to Jessica, who also observed that younger journalists may not be as comfortable using the telephone.

“I think that’s sad because the real interviews happen in person or on the phone,” she said. With email, “I don’t think you get honest answers as easily,” Jessica said. “Everything’s scripted; everything’s planned.”

Told of the phone interview obituary, Dennis Noone said, “I don’t buy it.” The editor of the Nevada Appeal in Carson City said, “I find the phone to be the preferred method of communication, … and I don’t say that because I’m an old-school dinosaur.”

“The phone cuts to the chase better. It helps you get a read on people,” Dennis said. “It’s a more immediate and more personal way to get to a relationship with people that you don’t get with email, Facebook or Twitter.”

Dennis said he thoroughly backgrounds job candidates and others on social media, but for communicating with them, “I’m a phone guy.”

‘A Losing Battle’

Bruce Tomaso, breaking news editor at The Dallas Morning News, termed the phone interview “not dead, but not the vital tool it once was.” Bruce said it is “entirely possible to do lucid interviews by email or Facebook.” He added, “I always preferred in person to phone anyway whenever possible, so I don’t regard the decline of the phoner as much of a loss.”

Asked whether he thinks the phone interview is deceased, Morning News education reporter Matthew Haag said, “Not at all. Emails and social media can work but don’t replace [the] phone.” Matthew is an excellent blogger and is active on Twitter, but said, “One reason phone interviews work for me is that most of my sources aren’t on social media.”

Jake Batsell, a former News reporter who teaches digital journalism at Southern Methodist University in Texas, said, “I still insist on phone or in-person interviews with my students, but I get the feeling sometimes that I am fighting a losing battle.” Asked if his students don’t recognize the phone’s value in controlling the interview and getting better quotes, Jake said, “The best students do see that; the mediocre ones prefer the ease of email.”

Efficient, But Limiting

“Email interviews aren’t really interviews,” offered Jason Trahan, investigative producer at WFAA-TV in Dallas. “They are efficient, but are limiting. The best interviews are those that include banter and asides which lead to more questions and ultimately better information imparted.”

‘I Want a Conversation’

“The idea that the phone interview is dead strikes me as preposterous,” said a reporter at The Wall Street Journal. “Reporters who rely on email or Twitter for interviews probably won’t last as reporters for very long. Just like a decade ago, email can be useful for setting up interviews and meetings. It’s often the first way I reach out to usual sources to find out when they’re free and when they’re able to talk by phone or in person.

“Twitter can sometimes be useful for gauging what someone thinks about an issue, or using a direct message to make a contact. Nothing can replace a phone conversation or face-to-face discussion. I find it highly implausible that most reporters could get the same kind of information or color by largely texting, tweeting or emailing with a source as they could by phone or in person.”

Michael Grabell of ProPublica was similarly emphatic. “No, the phone interview is not dead. Nor is the in-person interview.

“Unless I’m on a tight deadline or distance is a barrier, in-person is always my first option. If not, I always do phone. That said, I do think e-mail is a good way to break the ice to set up an interview — especially with a source who doesn’t know who I am or why I’d be calling out of the blue.

“As for Twitter, Facebook and other social media, I do think it’s a valuable way to reach a lot of people with specific experiences for your story (whom you can then call). You often get a lot more relevant responses than you would interviewing the man on the street. But you have to keep in mind, you’re getting a narrow cross-section of the population. Its value often depends on the story. If I’m dropping in on a new town, I’m still going to the local listening post – the diner or bar, etc., because of the serendipity factor.

“It was interesting for me to see that PR professionals also dislike e-mail interviews. I often experience the opposite with government and corporate press offices wanting e-mailed questions and then responding with a statement, which I didn’t ask for. This is a horrible approach. You lose the context of your answers. You don’t build rapport. And you prevent the reporter from seeing things through your eyes.

“Despite the sense that e-mail is more efficient, I find that e-mail interviews often take longer. The statement often doesn’t answer the question fully or raises follow-up questions. I’ve had rounds of this that have gone on for a week when it could have been resolved in an interview in one hour.

“I usually don’t want a statement. I want a conversation. I want to understand the issue from your perspective.”

An Experiment in Interviewing

Putting this post together involved an experiment that yielded some interesting findings. Do you recall that I reached out to a dozen journalists? Well, I made sure to contact three by phone and three through Twitter, Facebook or email.

Two of the three people I left phone messages with called me back the same day. They gave me the most colorful quotes. The fastest responses came with Twitter, and all three people to whom I sent direct messages responded on the same day. A few direct messages allowed for quick follow up, though there was that 140-character limit.

Just one of three of my Facebook friends responded, with a concise but brief answer. Two of the three people I emailed responded within a day. They may have given the most thoughtful responses, but in both cases there was an exchange to clarify my intent.

So can you tell which is which?

The responses under the first subhead (‘Everything’s Scripted’) came by phone, and those under the second subhead (‘A Losing Battle’) came via Twitter. WFAA’s Jason Trahan (under Efficient But Limiting) responded through Facebook. And the last replies (‘I Want a Conversation’) came by email.

I realize this post is lengthy, but if you have time, scroll back through the sections: phone, Twitter, Facebook, email. Treat them each as stories. If you had to read just one, which would it be?

• Social Media and Automation: Right or Wrong? Yes (Allen Mireles)
• SMB101 Post #2: The myth of engagement (Flacklife)
• Is It Time To Stop Listening to Social Media? (Spinsucks)
• Traditional Advertising is Truly Dead (Copyblogger)