The accuracy of reporting in the press

[Ed]

The first time I was interviewed I was astounded as to how they mangled and basically mis-reported my words. Subsequent interviews were either the same or worse. Needless to say, I take one on one interviews that I read with a grain of salt.

I was wondering, who here has been interviewed? How was the accuracy?

[iain]

There's an episode of the Simpons where Homer is publicly lambasted for sexually molesting a babysitter. A TV show fits him up and only backs down when Groundskeeper Willy produced video evidence that Homer was innocent. At the end, the same TV show does a hatchet job on Willy and Homer believes it.

Homer's reaction is probably a lot closer to that of most of us than we would like to admit. Most people who have had contact with the media know that, either through incompetence or a disregard for facts over a good story, what you read doesn't bear very close resemblance to the truth.

We're full of righteous indignation when we are misrepresented in the media, but generally accept the other things we see as if we were just the exception to the rule.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
There's an episode of the Simpons where Homer is publicly lambasted for sexually molesting a babysitter. A TV show fits him up and only backs down when Groundskeeper Willy produced video evidence that Homer was innocent. At the end, the same TV show does a hatchet job on Willy and Homer believes it.

Homer's reaction is probably a lot closer to that of most of us than we would like to admit. Most people who have had contact with the media know that, either through incompetence or a disregard for facts over a good story, what you read doesn't bear very close resemblance to the truth.



Great episode!!

I didnt realize the simpsons was so popular in europe until I went to london and saw that it was on as much as it is here.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Great episode!!

I didnt realize the simpsons was so popular in europe until I went to london and saw that it was on as much as it is here.

The UK isn't Europe, Tony.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


The UK isn't Europe, Tony.

You're right, forgive my blasphemy, it will never happen again. :D

[BillyTK]

anyway, this one is fairly easy to answer; accuracy doesn't make for great entertainment.

For instance, Paul Wolfowitz being quoted as saying (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/wolfowitz.vanity.fair/): "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." makes for better copy than what he actually said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." And the interview transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html) is as dull as ditch water.

So there's some "artistic license" going on to make the interview more readable, to make it fit to the space available and to make it more attractive to the readership, which is where that bias thing comes in.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


You're right, forgive my blasphemy, it will never happen again. :D

Consider yourself forgiven. It's not a case of blasphemy though, it's simply an inaccuracy, like trying to generalise conditions across the whole of continental America from a particular set of circumstances in Canada or Peru.

Perhaps it's the result of media bias? ;)

[cbish]

I have been interviewed hundreds of times and I will say that for the most part, the accuracy was pretty good. However, I have had some bad experiences. Most of the problems arise from being quoted out of context. That will change reality faster than anything. I have had a few experiences where I felt the reporter had a preconceived idea of what was going to be written that wasn't necessarily truthful. So after responding "no" to a question he wanted a "yes" to, he finally worded the question that warranted a "kind of" response that was printed as "yes".

In my mind, it comes down to the work ethic of the reporter. When mistakes are made, it seems it's because the reporter is in a hurry or doesn't want to take the time to do a good job.

[Crossbow]

Some years ago I was a witness in a high-profile criminal case and my part was mentioned in a newspaper account.

Yes, she got a few basic details wrong and I told her which ones. She offered to post a retraction, but I said do not do that on my account, just get the final version correct when the final piece is published.

Well, the final piece was nothing more than guilty as charged, and the sentencing hearing will be in about six weeks.

Ugh! I should have asked for the retraction instead.