The Media Interview

Angelina Jolie is being called a hypocrite by some media (for instance, here, here, and here) after she imposed strict limits on interviews during the June 13th premiere of A Mighty Heart, in which she plays the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Roger Friedman of Fox News blasted Jolie for what he called her attempt to “censor all her interviews” by forcing journalists to sign a contract, saying it was ironic that the movie’s premiere was in aid of Reporters Without Borders - a group which tries to protect the freedom of the press:

Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie’s Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.

Reporters were asked to agree to “not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave.”

The agreement also required that “the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”

If that wasn’t enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, “the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer.” Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would “cause Jolie irreparable harm” and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.

I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.

“I wouldn’t sign it,” a reporter for a major outlet said. “Who does she think she is?”

A call to Offer was apparently one that could be refused. He didn’t return calls. An associate, Lindsay Strasberg, said, before hanging up: “You’re a reporter? I can’t talk to reporters. Goodbye.”

So much for reporters without borders.

I think it’s wrong to equate someone’s attempt to control the content of an interview through contractual means with the use of governmental power to suppress information, but that aside, this case raises important issues about the relationship of interviewer and interviewee.

Journalists sometimes are asked not to ask things and interviewees sometimes walk out of interviews when questioned about things they don’t like - there’s nothing new here, but the signing of a contract (I would love to see a copy of that!) starts to move things from the hands of media trainers and publicists into the realm of lawyers. Are people in the public eye becoming so afraid of what will happen to their words after an interview that they’re trying to legally lock down the interview content as much as possible beforehand?

It’s easy to say the interviewee should just give a ‘no comment’ to questions they don’t like, but from their standpoint, wouldn’t it be nice to make it clear beforehand what questions you won’t answer so that you don’t have to go through the same ‘no comment’ for fifty different reporters? Even so, do you need a contract with threats of penalties to make such things clear?

Interestingly, Jolie later said on The Daily Show that the contract was “excessive” and she would not have authorized it had she seen it beforehand - it was her people trying to protect her: