4 ms·

Last year, I was interviewed for a public radio show in Europe. There was nothing more exciting for me to be in the spotlight. A week later they ran the intervi

Last year, I was interviewed for a public radio show in Europe. There was nothing more exciting for me to be in the spotlight. A week later they ran the interview and it was eerie to hear myself say things I didn't remember saying. I mean, I said it, but I didn't say it like that. At first I thought I was crazy and didn't remember the interview correctly. Luckily, I had recorded the whole session on my computer. I was not crazy. The interviewers questions were rephrased, and my answers where edited to make them more dramatic. I had received many calls from journalists, and many didn't run the story at all after I said I will only answer some parts Off the record. Most often then not, the journalists already has a story when they come to you. All they need is a quote of you saying what they already wrote.

jacquesm 7y ago
That's so dishonest it isn't even funny. I was interviewed a few years back because I built an - unreleased - search engine and the interviewer wanted me to say some particular stuff about Google. I refused and the interview atmosphere was definitely very much different after that. There are plenty of good journalists but there are also a bunch of them that are complete jerks that fabricate stuff rather than report on reality.
rustguy 7y ago
My friend's friend interviewed me for the college paper re: online poker. Her final article had quotes taken out of context here and there. Painted me as a degenerate gambler drowning in luck. In reality, I had 2 years of positive cash flow and stable, increasing profits with records of every single hand played. Fortunately, the editor threw the article away (I'm not sure why, but I like to think it was seen as biased). How naive I was, though. That article could have been on the reasonably prominent paper website, available to anyone googling me even now. I lost a friend over it. Everyone's got their own agenda. Journalists are just closer to the public eye.
rainyMammoth 7y ago
I remember the day I realized that most of "journalism" is basically a narrative confirmation machine. each newspaper or media got a well defined narrative and they make the facts look like the narrative by using the "omission" technique: Basically removing the inconvenient facts and publishing the edited facts that fit their world view.
cljs-js-eval 7y ago
Every English class I've had growing up in America has a bunch of assignments like this: 1. Pick a topic. 2. Pick a position. 3. Find sources that support your position. 4. Write. If English were held to the same high standard as the sciences, it would go: 1. Pick a topic. 2. Research sources. 3. Pick your position. 4. Write. It's not surprising that the people who do the best in English have carried this mindset with them to their job.

jacquesm 7y ago

That's so dishonest it isn't even funny. I was interviewed a few years back because I built an - unreleased - search engine and the interviewer wanted me to say some particular stuff about Google. I refused and the interview atmosphere was definitely very much different after that. There are plenty of good journalists but there are also a bunch of them that are complete jerks that fabricate stuff rather than report on reality.

rustguy 7y ago

My friend's friend interviewed me for the college paper re: online poker. Her final article had quotes taken out of context here and there. Painted me as a degenerate gambler drowning in luck. In reality, I had 2 years of positive cash flow and stable, increasing profits with records of every single hand played. Fortunately, the editor threw the article away (I'm not sure why, but I like to think it was seen as biased). How naive I was, though. That article could have been on the reasonably prominent paper website, available to anyone googling me even now. I lost a friend over it. Everyone's got their own agenda. Journalists are just closer to the public eye.

rainyMammoth 7y ago

I remember the day I realized that most of "journalism" is basically a narrative confirmation machine. each newspaper or media got a well defined narrative and they make the facts look like the narrative by using the "omission" technique: Basically removing the inconvenient facts and publishing the edited facts that fit their world view.

cljs-js-eval 7y ago

Every English class I've had growing up in America has a bunch of assignments like this: 1. Pick a topic. 2. Pick a position. 3. Find sources that support your position. 4. Write. If English were held to the same high standard as the sciences, it would go: 1. Pick a topic. 2. Research sources. 3. Pick your position. 4. Write. It's not surprising that the people who do the best in English have carried this mindset with them to their job.