Reader Question: Should I Record A Biased Reporter?
A reader named Sean Hughes ran into a familiar problem recently when dealing with a local reporter. He writes:
“We have a local metro reporter who loves to edit on-camera interviews to his (or his editors’) liking, typically avoiding our key messages in favor of sensationalist reactions from incited passers-by. To help fairly manage our participation in public discussion, is it okay to record the interview alongside the camera man, post the vid to our own site/blog, and link back to it in the comments section if the story gets skewed? This may not help in the media-trust department, but…I also think that the simple gesture during the interview may prompt a second-guess by the story crafter before they take a hard angle. Any experience with, or thoughts on, this potentially sensitive tactic?”
You’re handling this situation exactly right, Sean. I generally don’t advise subjects of news pieces to shoot raw video of their on-camera interviews for the reason you cite—it can lead to a reduction of trust between reporter and source. But in cases in which that trust has already been fractured, you have little to lose by putting the reporter on notice that their careless or motivated editing will be available to—and scrutinized by—the general public.
I’d offer a few additional thoughts:
First, try working the journalistic food chain before getting too aggressive. Try speaking to the reporter, then to the editor, then to the news director. Request to meet at their office. Share your concerns. As you might suspect, that doesn’t work a lot of the time—but it does occasionally, so it’s worth the effort.
Second, if you do decide to tape the interview, tell the reporters in advance. By doing so, it lets them know early in their story preparation that they should toe the line carefully. Plus, it prevents you from being accused of an “unprofessional” reverse media ambush.
Third, releasing the video on your own networks/blogs/websites is a great idea—but also contemplate a few additional possibilities. Consider sending it to your full mailing list with video embedded in the email. And if any traditional or online news organizations in your city criticize other competitive local media outlets, consider pitching them on a piece comparing the butchered story to your raw tape. (In Washington, D.C., for example, The Washington City Paper, an alternative weekly, regularly critiques The Washington Post.)
Good luck, Sean. Thanks for writing!
Do you have a media or presentation training question you’d like answered on the blog? Please email your question to Contact-at-MrMediaTraining.com.
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
Wow! Great question, and great answer!
Thanks so much for reading, Stacey!
I’m not sure I agree with this approach. By taping video with the intent of doing a “gotcha” to a “gotcha” journalist, what are you really gaining in the public’s eye?
TV news – however sensationalized it can be – is hard to combat with a secondary message that undoubtedly will not reach as many viewers as the original broadcast.
Your company could come off as disgruntled and could alienate your core audience with this perseved aggressive media counter attack.
My advise would be not to participate and tell the reporter why. If he/she relies on you as a source, this stance could do more to improve the relationship than your plan of action.
Paul,
First, thank you for leaving such a thoughtful comment on the blog.
I take your point, at least partially, but I do believe there are times when this approach is necessary. There are circumstances in which turning down an interview outright will cause the public to conclude you’re guilty, so participating in a risky interview may still be the right call. In therms of doing a “gotcha” to a “gotcha” journalist, that’s not the goal. The goal is to let the journalist know that there’s a full record of the exchange, and that unfair edits will be called out publicly. I believe that’s an appropriate approach, at least in unusual circumstances.
You’re right that I should add “Don’t do the interview” as one of the options to consider. Consider that number 4.
Thanks again, and welcome to the blog.
Brad