Being Misquoted

I have been misquoted in the press.

And I hate it.

It is one of the most unpleasant experiences that I have ever had. 

You have to explain to everyone that you did not mean to call them "stupid" or some other painful thing.

And you have no good way of taking the misquote back.  Sure you can ask for a retraction, but we all know that is a lot of work for fairly little value when the damage has already been done.

So one of the things I love about blogging is the fact that I can recheck my words, edit them myself, and if I don't like the way it came out, I can re-edit the post after it goes up.  I can be my own editor and there is nobody between me and the audience to mess it up.  And if it is messed up, its entirely my fault.

I like that so much that recently when a journalist called me to talk about VCs and blogging, I asked her if she could just read my blog and take quotes from there so that I did not have to talk to her. She said she couldn't do that.  That's too bad because it seemed like a great solution to me.

Yesterday, John Batelle felt that Saul Hansell misquoted him in a New York Times piece on Google's new graphical ad program.  John had a new outlet to share his pain, his blog.  But an interesting thing happened.  Saul came and read John's words and then commented on them. 

That's progress on two fronts.  First, John can reach a sizeable audience with his own words to be clear about what he thinks about Google's new program.  He doesn't have to rely entirely on Saul to get them out to the market.  In fact, I didn't read Saul's piece, but I did read John's post.

But also, there is a conversation happening about what John really meant.  And its a good one, without a lot of anger and hostility, and its up on the web for everyone to see.

That's progress.

But I'd still prefer that journalists read my blog and quote from it instead of getting me on the phone and subjecting me to the risk of a misquote.  I guess that's too much change to hope for.

Comments

[Brendan Greeley]

But I'd still prefer that journalists read my blog and quote from it instead of getting me on the phone and subjecting me to the risk of a misquote. I guess that's too much change to hope for.

I think it is too much to ask for, and you might be disappointed if you get it. Bad or lazy journalists take down what's given to them, whether it's from a press release or a blog. Good, thorough journalists ask follow-ups and challenge statements as they find them, and to do this they have to get on the phone.

Think what you're suggesting we sacrifice for you to retain this control over your words: the ability of a good journalist to get something out of the silences in a phone conversation, to introduce facts or perspective the subject hadn't considered and get a reaction, or simply to ask about something that hadn't occurred to the subject. Or to be able to describe the subject's mannerisms or physical appearance.

It's nice, I agree, to have complete control over your image. But to get it, you want the same privilege reserved for press reps of recalcitrant politicians: "You have my statement, that's all you get." Journalism is bad off as it is; do we really want to require that journalists -- citizen journalists and traditional journalists -- get their information only from public statements?

[Henry Abbott]

As both a journalist and a blogger, I see both sides with empathy.

One thing I have learned however, is that in any media operation decisions about how ideas are collected or expressed are key, but not nearly as important as decisions about what topics will be addressed at all.

For example, in a movie, the cinematography, lighting, and acting involve massive skill, but they're nothing like as important as deciding whether or not the scene even makes it into the script.

Or in the newspaper, the headlines, photos, and phraseology are big deals, but peanuts compared to what stories get covered.

And I bring it all up by way of making this point: if I read your blog for quotes, you control the topic--addressing only the topics you choose. On the other hand, if I call you up and interview you, I can ask anything I want. Sometimes that's essential in getting to the truth, and at lease some interviews will have to persist for that reason.

But, on the other hand, if you find yourself telling reporters the same things a million times, I see no reason not to steer them to the blog for your polished explanation--if nothing else it will save everyone time. They can cut and paste. You can kick back and listen to that great Bright Eyes CD.

[tknuewer]

As a journalist for Handelsblatt, Germany's biggest business and financial daily, and a blogger, I have to give you a warning. Have you ever thought about being qouted out of context?
If you tell a journalist to just take out of your blog what ever he likes, you will see sentences of the blog being completely correctly mentioned - but in a slightly to totally different context. And that doesn't have to be connected with bad intentions. Or would you call yourself the only person whose articles can't be misunderstood?

In Germany there's a different way to handle this. It is appropriate for journalists to send the quotes (only the qoutes, not the whole article) to person they interviewed for a recheck. Maybe a solution for your disgust with my colleagues in the states?

[just.a.guy]

To me the middle ground obvious thing to do is just conduct the interview over email, over an extended period of time.

This gives the interviewee the opportunity to pause, reflect, and revise your thoughts before speaking ahead of himself.

This also gives the interviewer the opportunity to pick up on threads of conversation and lines of questioning that present themselves for deeper insight.

It also doesn't require both people to set aside a large chunk of contemporaneous time.

[Tom]

I agree with Just a Guy. Mark Cuban has gone that route and has had great success with it.

It also gives you a transcript of the interview. If your opinions were misconstrued, you can post the transcript directly onto your blog to clarify the record.

[Giordano]

Fred, you're basically proposing to kill journalism. Imagine if all the great reporters of the past had sticked to press releases or to the info that the interviewed party had published... I know blogs are changing the rules of the game, but I would rather read an interview conducted by a professional aiming to get the inside scoop from the interviewee, than a transcript of something I can read elsewere. The difference between good journalism and bad journalism is the men that sits behind the keyboard and types the story... great interviews are born from great interviewers.

[hey]

the problem is that journalistic ethics won't let you see the product, as they're run based on every story being a huge expose. but most sotries are pure information, and the subjects can really help b y ensuring that the reporter has the context right.

you need to be wary of hit pieces and misrepresentation on behalf of reporters. in most industries, almost every story is a hit piece (tech tends to be different, as it is viewed as being more friendly). hence why anyone that deals with the media needs preparation so that nothing they say can be taken out of context or misrepresented.

its a serious dilemma on how to get your message out but not set yourself up for some reporter out to prove how "big business" is evil. an email interview is great, as you have a full transcript that can be independently verified. journalists should have much larger liabilities attached to getting facts wrong or misrepresenting things. they need more drive to get things right rather than first.

[Christy]

I agree -- I like being interviewed over email the best. I have a chance to think through my answers, but the writer can ask anything s/he wants. As a scientist, I'm especially wary of radio because I've had several friends who've had bad experiences even with good journalists, even in fairly long npr interviews. What they tend to do is cut out all portions of the conversation that they deem uninteresting, which usually means they cut out the parts in which you are crediting your collaborators (yikes). The editing is nearly seemless on radio, so it is difficult to tell when things have been cut.

[Christy]

I agree -- I like being interviewed over email the best. I have a chance to think through my answers, but the writer can ask anything s/he wants. As a scientist, I'm especially wary of radio because I've had several friends who've had bad experiences even with good journalists, even in fairly long npr interviews. What they tend to do is cut out all portions of the conversation that they deem uninteresting, which usually means they cut out the parts in which you are crediting your collaborators (yikes). The editing is nearly seemless on radio, so it is difficult to tell when things have been cut.