5 ms·

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 oth

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.

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.