11 ms·

Everyone I've met that's been interviewed about a controversial topic has been critical of the press. I haven't been sure if it's because they think their view

Everyone I've met that's been interviewed about a controversial topic has been critical of the press. I haven't been sure if it's because they think their view is the only correct one or the media are truly that sloppy. My intuition says the latter because time is money and journalists are rarely experts in the fields they cover.

hluska 8y ago
I was once something of a journalist and noticed something interesting. When I interviewed someone about something controversial, they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  When you did this? Why wouldn't all journalists always do this?
  - hluska 8y ago
    They should as it's a great tool to both guarantee accuracy, and ensure you're being fair. But, running an interview, getting people off their script, and still constantly checking and validating are all tough. I could see people forgetting it or just not being comfortable. I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later. This sounds interesting :) any stories you're able to share on this?
- losteric 8y ago
  Sometimes the defensiveness arises because of our offensive media atmosphere... the feeling is some of the journalist's quotes/"facts" may be mis-attributed, taken out of context, or straight up lies hoping to get a response that can be quoted out of context. Even supportive facts/quotes can cause concern. Subject matter experts have a reputation on the line, while the journalist is often just looking for a story.
  - hluska 8y ago
    It's interesting because the act of constantly checking facts and quotes actually helps prevent words from being taken out of context. Good interviews can get away from both parties and solid questioning and verification ensures that the listener applies the correct context to the words.
- felix_nagaand 8y ago
  Why does this strike you as a revelation? Of course they'll get defensive when you challenge their beliefs.
  - hluska 8y ago
    It is quite interesting (and telling of your beliefs) that you took my words to mean that I challenged their beliefs. I wrote, "they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them." We check facts and quotes to ensure that we are being accurate and fair. Would you prefer being misquoted? Or would you prefer having improper contact assigned to your words?
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      I'd guess this happens because a journalist starting to fact check is often a giveaway that they are about to write something you'd want to challenge later. Nobody ever called me, my boss or my friends to verify this summer has been extremely hot or what my favourite food is. Also: just getting the words correct doesn't help if you cut the part where I explained what happened.
      - zapfranklin 8y ago
        I suspect you don't have a strong understanding of how journalism works. A journalist fact-checking a story is more often a giveaway they are a conscientious journalist working for a legitimate organization. Getting the story right is a sacred thing for real journalists who know that not doing so opens them up to being called out in the public sphere for spreading untruth. Extensive fact-checking is not only critical to maintaining a reputation, it probably provides some kind of legal cover.
        reitanqild 8y ago
        > it probably provides some kind of legal cover. Exactly. I'm very aware of that. The problem is both good journalists and bad journalists call to do fact checks, -good journalists to verify they got the facts correct, bad journalists to provide legal cover before they quote you out of context to build the case they want to build anyway. So, when someone call you and want to verify what you said I'll recommend being very sure that you get it exactly right and so clear that they cannot misunderstand you. Defending yourself against a journalist might easily become a case of "have you stopped beating your wife? How hard can this be, yes or no?"
qubex 8y ago
The Press’ expertise lies with disseminating information. That’s their skillset.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

hluska 8y ago

I was once something of a journalist and noticed something interesting. When I interviewed someone about something controversial, they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them.

jessaustin 8y ago
When you did this? Why wouldn't all journalists always do this?
- hluska 8y ago
  They should as it's a great tool to both guarantee accuracy, and ensure you're being fair. But, running an interview, getting people off their script, and still constantly checking and validating are all tough. I could see people forgetting it or just not being comfortable. I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later. This sounds interesting :) any stories you're able to share on this?
losteric 8y ago
Sometimes the defensiveness arises because of our offensive media atmosphere... the feeling is some of the journalist's quotes/"facts" may be mis-attributed, taken out of context, or straight up lies hoping to get a response that can be quoted out of context. Even supportive facts/quotes can cause concern. Subject matter experts have a reputation on the line, while the journalist is often just looking for a story.
- hluska 8y ago
  It's interesting because the act of constantly checking facts and quotes actually helps prevent words from being taken out of context. Good interviews can get away from both parties and solid questioning and verification ensures that the listener applies the correct context to the words.
felix_nagaand 8y ago
Why does this strike you as a revelation? Of course they'll get defensive when you challenge their beliefs.
- hluska 8y ago
  It is quite interesting (and telling of your beliefs) that you took my words to mean that I challenged their beliefs. I wrote, "they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them." We check facts and quotes to ensure that we are being accurate and fair. Would you prefer being misquoted? Or would you prefer having improper contact assigned to your words?
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    I'd guess this happens because a journalist starting to fact check is often a giveaway that they are about to write something you'd want to challenge later. Nobody ever called me, my boss or my friends to verify this summer has been extremely hot or what my favourite food is. Also: just getting the words correct doesn't help if you cut the part where I explained what happened.
    - zapfranklin 8y ago
      I suspect you don't have a strong understanding of how journalism works. A journalist fact-checking a story is more often a giveaway they are a conscientious journalist working for a legitimate organization. Getting the story right is a sacred thing for real journalists who know that not doing so opens them up to being called out in the public sphere for spreading untruth. Extensive fact-checking is not only critical to maintaining a reputation, it probably provides some kind of legal cover.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        > it probably provides some kind of legal cover. Exactly. I'm very aware of that. The problem is both good journalists and bad journalists call to do fact checks, -good journalists to verify they got the facts correct, bad journalists to provide legal cover before they quote you out of context to build the case they want to build anyway. So, when someone call you and want to verify what you said I'll recommend being very sure that you get it exactly right and so clear that they cannot misunderstand you. Defending yourself against a journalist might easily become a case of "have you stopped beating your wife? How hard can this be, yes or no?"

qubex 8y ago

The Press’ expertise lies with disseminating information. That’s their skillset.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]