5 ms·

Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, o

by dp141 8y ago

Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, or responses are handled by a PR person who doesn't provide adequate comment. Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you, or the subject themselves bemoans how they were never given the opportunity to comment. Not that journalists are above reproach but I can't tell you how many times people got annoyed about not being able to to tell their side of the story or how X or Y was misrepresented when they were given countless ops to do put forward their own case. Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.

marcoperaza 8y ago
Giving a statement to a journalist who has already made up their mind that you’re a bad guy is probably a mistake. Especially when it comes to politics, the other side will take whatever you say out of context and present it in the light most unfavorable to you. Morally-exculpatory nuance goes out the window, or buried at the bottom of the article (the part that we know no one reads). The headline will be spun to make you sound like a monster (see CNN’s headlines about Mr. Damore: that he thought “women are biologically unfit for tech jobs”). Most people should make all statements with the assistance of professional PR if they’re in such a situation. Just like how anyone being interrogated by the police should only speak with the advice with a lawyer, no matter how innocent they actually are.
- dp141 8y ago
  True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.
  - nailer 8y ago
    There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.
      - nailer 8y ago
        The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?
        Guvante 8y ago
        Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.
        nailer 8y ago
        > Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist. > The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.
SubiculumCode 8y ago
Given the way my study description has on occasion been mangled by misunderstandings, I'd love a chance to comment on the draft before publishing.
nostrademons 8y ago
It's largely about who gets to control the narrative. If you give a quote to a journalist, they control the narrative - they can choose how to piece it together with other quotes, and where to put it in the article, and how to spin it, and with what emotional tone. If you say "no comment" to the journalist and then post your own version of the narrative on your blog later, you control the narrative from start to finish.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Basic journalist practice is that you can read the piece and suggest corrections, especially if you set it as a condition before being interviewed. You can have your own recording equipment, and someone else taking notes. You can require that you have an option to give your own response in the same page as the story (ask certain number of words). Write everything agreed down, have a record + witness. In TV all bets are off. I fully understand why people come in the front of TV cameras and spout only canned responses that say noting. Even the most innocent you say can be edited in a way that changes the narrative completely. Joe Nobody should never volunteer to be in the front of cameras if they are the source of bad news. It's completely adversarial setting and editing can change everything.
  - hyeonwho4 8y ago
    I don't see how print interviews are much better than TV. Is the idea that you can sue for libel if they misrepresent you? If I remwmber correctly, there was a case in Florida where one of the big 4 news agencies cut word out of a 911 call to make it more inflammatory.
  - sievebrain 8y ago
    I've take to journalists before on technical topics. Whenever I she'd to see the article before publication so I could correct mistakes they always refused and always stated they never share stories with sources. So I think you're wrong about that.
mehwoot 8y ago
Not that it's necessarily the case here, but people might not want to correct errors before someone publishes their piece- if the errors stay in, you can write a rebuttal that focuses on those errors and ignores other points which are harder to rebuke. If you're interested in winning an argument in public debate, then giving your opposition the chance to see your first rebuttal before they've publish their first attack is a huge, huge handicap.
jayd16 8y ago
>Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you As they should. Its the duty of the journalist to be correct in what they publish. Not getting an interview is no excuse.
- dp141 8y ago
  Of course, it's not usually something so blatant. My point is that your intention is to surmise as correctly as possible. Usually PRs pick up on fastidious detail to discredit whole story. Mostly these are genuine mistakes that are inconsequential to overall narrative and that could've easily been clarified. *EDITED for clarification.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 8y ago
Providing a rebuttal can confirm details that the journalist isn't sure about. One journalistic technique to get info from an unwilling subject is to make up a dramatic lie, and then record the rebuttal. "I hear you're going to close your North American factory, laying off 5,000 workers" "No no, we're not closing the factory, and it's only 400 staff who'll lose their jobs."
- nailer 8y ago
  That's actually a great way to get an answer to any question someone may not want to answer, regardless of your profession. Say your friend exits for an undisclosed sum and you want to know how much: > "What was your exit price?" > "Dude I can't tell you." Compare this with: > "Was the cash part 84 million US? > "No way man, like half that" Your friend existed for around 40 million US. Ethics are up to you.

by dp141 8y ago

marcoperaza 8y ago

Giving a statement to a journalist who has already made up their mind that you’re a bad guy is probably a mistake. Especially when it comes to politics, the other side will take whatever you say out of context and present it in the light most unfavorable to you. Morally-exculpatory nuance goes out the window, or buried at the bottom of the article (the part that we know no one reads). The headline will be spun to make you sound like a monster (see CNN’s headlines about Mr. Damore: that he thought “women are biologically unfit for tech jobs”). Most people should make all statements with the assistance of professional PR if they’re in such a situation. Just like how anyone being interrogated by the police should only speak with the advice with a lawyer, no matter how innocent they actually are.

dp141 8y ago
True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.
- nailer 8y ago
  There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.
    - nailer 8y ago
      The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?
      - Guvante 8y ago
        Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.
        nailer 8y ago
        > Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist. > The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.

SubiculumCode 8y ago

Given the way my study description has on occasion been mangled by misunderstandings, I'd love a chance to comment on the draft before publishing.

nostrademons 8y ago

It's largely about who gets to control the narrative. If you give a quote to a journalist, they control the narrative - they can choose how to piece it together with other quotes, and where to put it in the article, and how to spin it, and with what emotional tone. If you say "no comment" to the journalist and then post your own version of the narrative on your blog later, you control the narrative from start to finish.

Nokinside 8y ago
Basic journalist practice is that you can read the piece and suggest corrections, especially if you set it as a condition before being interviewed. You can have your own recording equipment, and someone else taking notes. You can require that you have an option to give your own response in the same page as the story (ask certain number of words). Write everything agreed down, have a record + witness. In TV all bets are off. I fully understand why people come in the front of TV cameras and spout only canned responses that say noting. Even the most innocent you say can be edited in a way that changes the narrative completely. Joe Nobody should never volunteer to be in the front of cameras if they are the source of bad news. It's completely adversarial setting and editing can change everything.
- hyeonwho4 8y ago
  I don't see how print interviews are much better than TV. Is the idea that you can sue for libel if they misrepresent you? If I remwmber correctly, there was a case in Florida where one of the big 4 news agencies cut word out of a 911 call to make it more inflammatory.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  I've take to journalists before on technical topics. Whenever I she'd to see the article before publication so I could correct mistakes they always refused and always stated they never share stories with sources. So I think you're wrong about that.

mehwoot 8y ago

Not that it's necessarily the case here, but people might not want to correct errors before someone publishes their piece- if the errors stay in, you can write a rebuttal that focuses on those errors and ignores other points which are harder to rebuke. If you're interested in winning an argument in public debate, then giving your opposition the chance to see your first rebuttal before they've publish their first attack is a huge, huge handicap.

jayd16 8y ago

>Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you As they should. Its the duty of the journalist to be correct in what they publish. Not getting an interview is no excuse.

dp141 8y ago
Of course, it's not usually something so blatant. My point is that your intention is to surmise as correctly as possible. Usually PRs pick up on fastidious detail to discredit whole story. Mostly these are genuine mistakes that are inconsequential to overall narrative and that could've easily been clarified. *EDITED for clarification.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 8y ago

Providing a rebuttal can confirm details that the journalist isn't sure about. One journalistic technique to get info from an unwilling subject is to make up a dramatic lie, and then record the rebuttal. "I hear you're going to close your North American factory, laying off 5,000 workers" "No no, we're not closing the factory, and it's only 400 staff who'll lose their jobs."

nailer 8y ago
That's actually a great way to get an answer to any question someone may not want to answer, regardless of your profession. Say your friend exits for an undisclosed sum and you want to know how much: > "What was your exit price?" > "Dude I can't tell you." Compare this with: > "Was the cash part 84 million US? > "No way man, like half that" Your friend existed for around 40 million US. Ethics are up to you.