Yes they did.
The hardworking staff initially asked the question after seeing this paragraph in Sunday’s Boston Globe feature on the Fall of the House of Sarkis, written by staffer Jenn Abelson and correspondent Walter Robinson:
Charlie Sarkis and his second wife, Jolene, agreed to an interview with the Globe but later canceled the meeting. Jolene Sarkis, a former publisher of Fortune magazine, asked for a detailed list of questions by e-mail and then said she would not answer them, citing what she said were restrictions in the sales agreement with Tavistock [the private equity firm buying 19 of Sarkis’s 33 restaurants].
We weren’t sure, so we asked Abelson if the Globe had provided the questions to Sarkis, and she wrote back:
The globe provided her the list of questions
So here’s the other question: Is there anything wrong with that? The hardworking staff always thought standard journalistic practice was not to provide questions in advance.
Are we hopelessly behind the times? Foolishly fastidious? Just plain dopey?
Help us out here, splendid readers.
Campaign Outsider 
We only found out because Sarkis wouldn’t answer the questions. I’m hopelessly behind the times (and I’ve never been a professional journalist), but I think journalists are deceiving their readers unless they reveal all the ground rules of the interviews they conduct. Were questions provided in advance? Was it agreed beforehand not to bring up certain subjects? It’s all essential information.
In the Sarkis article, who else got written questions? What other ground rules were negotiated?
Good questions all, Bob – and provided in advance.
When I read the story on Sunday, I assumed the wording meant that the questions were provided in advance… but it’s nice that you confirmed it.
I thought that journalism school — which I never attended! — teaches the first rule of interviewing:
(1) All topics are fair game, unless both interviewer and interviewee mutually agree upon exceptions in advance.
But then, there’s the sub-clause:
(1)(a) When interviewing non-controversial figures, or on non-controversial topics, or about non-controversial third-party subjects, questions can be provided in advance (i.e., the questions emailed as a set).
Sarkis and his business practices ain’t non-controversial, so (1)(a) doesn’t apply.
Yeah, but looks like old-school doesn’t apply either, Mike.
Pingback: The Boston Globe-Advance | Campaign Outsider
Certainly news people don’t want to hear this, but my question (in advance) would be – is this story any of my business? Are there any public interests to be furthered by the pursuit of this story? If so, then I’d object to questions being furnished in advance.
And if not, then I really don’t care. I might like the story for purely voyeuristic reasons – I’m not above occasional voyeurism – but if the subject of the piece told the reporter to go away, I’d have no objection.
I dunno, Steve – major liquor-license-holding local owner sells to out-of-town investment group? Sounds like real news to me.
I have zero problem with providing the questions in advance, as long as it’s disclosed, which it was. Lots of interviews are conducted by email these days, which is another way of providing the questions in advance. That’s not always disclosed. (Speaking of disclosed: Walter Robinson is a colleague of mine at Northeastern.)
Thanks, Dan. Always value your judgment.
Agree with Dan. So long as it’s disclosed, there’s nothing wrong with it. I was also inclined to agree with Steve Stein above, however upon further reflection, think that an article / expose on such a prominent local business leader is more than fair game.
Thanks, Brendan. Also, see my reply to Steve.