Take care that the journalist is not making you the 'unwelcome news', instead of you just having your say.
It might not be most people, but many of us might feel excited at the prospect of being 'interviewed' by a journalist, with the reward of prominence being given to our humble or grandiose views on the radio or TV.
Many of us might think that journalists are professional and thoughtful people who would not stoop to exploit and dishonestly air our views in a way which could prove damaging to us. The phrase which is often used here, is that they took what we said out of context. Context, of course, means that we should not excise part of a sentence or a section of what is said, and quote it as part of a statement we are making, in such a way that it could have a different meaning from that which it was intended to have, in the generality of the, let us say, the full interview.
In years gone by, I became acquainted with a lecturer by name was Ian Phillips, whose approach towards journalist was to not give them interviews, because of his concern that they would take what he said and publicise it out of context.
So, what does this mean? Well, it means that both the journalist and the interviewee will have an agenda of what they want to achieve during, and, yes, after the interview. The interviewee might desire to achieve publicity and fame and demand for what he/she might be selling. For the journalist, the motivation is likely to be that of 'getting a good story', including 'good soundbites', and, yes, fame and demand for their 'success' in getting the 'scoop.' And how will the journalist get the 'good story'? Probably by being polite, professional, considerate, and placing the mike in front of the interviewee and, with facilitatory and helpful questions, enable the interviewee to best communicate what they want to communicate?
Probably some journalist might do that, but not all. Some will be endeavouring to implement a strategy which they hope will lead the interviewee to disclosing the 'story' which the journalist want them to be 'disclosed', and which is not necessarily the one which they, the interviewee would want to air. Other journalists might be somewhat idiotic and oblivious to the wider implications of the questions they they are asking the interviewee and 'leading' them onto giving their, the journalists, preferred answer or response.
The interviewee should be on guard and not presume that the journalist is altruistic or not unscrupulous.
An example of this was displayed on the British Radio 4 programme this morning, with a journalist asking a QC barrister - of all persons - whether he would be 'alright with a man being kept in solitary confinement for 10 years.' Can you believe that a journalist would ask a barrister such a injurious question? Fortunately, the barrister challenged what she was asking him to agree to, by pointing out the human rights issue involved in keeping people in isolation in prison.
This same journalist was quoting a remark the barrister made during the interview. Had it not been that the barrister had more sense than her, she could so easily have been quoting him, as having said the person who had been convicted of charges relating to promoting terrorism, should be placed in confinement for 10 years, without adding that it was she, the journalist, who suggested that figure and asked him to agree to it.
So, let the interviewee beware of the fact that journalist, even if not always out to exploit their interviewees, are not necessarily going to avoid doing so, if they have the opportunity.
In trying to 'get your message across' be mindful of how the other person might want to use you and your message to get theirs across.
Politicians then to be vigilant and not answering questions, but ordinary people should be vigilant when being questioned by journalist, and beware of the latter's probably agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment