The Media Interview

The website Media Matters says CNN “deceptively cropped” the June 29th Face the Nation interview with retired General Wesley Clark during a report on its American Morning show June 30th. Here’s the Media Matters transcript of the CNN video clip:

CLARK [video clip]: That large squadron in the Air — in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. … I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Media Matters then rightly points out that this clip removes the context of that final statement of Clark’s - the one which has drawn a lot of criticism. When you view the entire transcript, you can see that Clark was using the words of Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer:

CLARK: That large squadron in the Air — in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, “I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it” –

SCHIEFFER: Well –

CLARK: — “publicly?” He hasn’t made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Well — well, General, maybe he –

CLARK: So –

SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? If –

CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean –

CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

[Media Matters transcript, with the BOLD showing the part that CNN left out]

I completely agree with Media Matters that this edit changes the context considerably, but what I have some trouble with is the notion that CNN “deceptively cropped” the video.

From what I’ve seen of newsrooms, it is far more likely that the editors and reporters didn’t even understand the importance of the context and that their sole purpose for the edit was to keep the clip short and dramatic. I’m willing to bet this had more to do with sloppiness and ignorance than it did with deception… little comfort, I know, but I think it’s important to understand the true causes of these serious issues.

A comment by one of presidential candidate John McCain’s advisors, quoted in a Fortune magazine article, has created quite a stir and raises an interesting issue about the transparency of media interviews.

Here’s part of the LA Times story on the comments by Charlie Black:

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”

Black may be correct, but he’s not supposed to be quite so blunt in coldly calculating the upside for McCain of harm coming to Americans. Others — unconnected with the campaign — could offer such an assessment, but he should have dodged the question.

He knows it, and The Times’ Maeve Reston reports that outside a McCain fundraiser today in Fresno, Black said: “I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration.”

McCain, for his part, did what he’s supposed to do — stressing his lifelong commitment to protecting America and flat out disputing Black’s premise. “It’s not true,” he said when asked in Fresno about his aide’s remark.

Black’s regret at his comments suggests that this was indeed a major slip of the tongue during an interview - there’s no claim that he was taken out of context or anything like that.

For the record, here’s the quote in the context of the Fortune article:

On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain’s chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

While it seems that the reporter has been accurate in framing this quote - Black has had ample opportunity to challenge the accuracy - it would be fascinating to read the transcript of that portion of the interview.

It’s a good example of how we trust journalists (mainstream or otherwise) to boil down all of their information into a story which still accurately captures meaning. Sadly, that trust is lacking among the general public - journalists are often well down in the poll results of people we trust - and I think one way they can regain that is to use the freedom of the internet to back up their stories with transparency (printing transcripts, for example). Which is not to say that this is an easy thing to do; how would you like people questioning your work based on the misjudgments or outright lies of others in your industry?

As for Black, I like the LA Times comment: “he should have dodged the question.”

Sage words from the PR Lawyer Blog:

So, I’m sitting here five hours later wondering to myself, “What did I say on that interview earlier today.” My media relations advice is: don’t ever talk to anyone after having Novocaine. Go home. Shut your door. And go to bed!

Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin simply got up and left in the middle of an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Front Row program, leaving presenter John Wilson and the band’s drummer Will Champion to carry on:

Wilson: Do you start with that idea, Chris… [sound in background] did you start with the song Viva La Vida, and the idea within that song of the deposed dictator looking back on his life… [voice in background] is that… could I just ask you just to move back in to the mike [garbled]

Martin: [off mike] ….I’m not really enjoying this…

Wilson: Aren’t you?…

Martin: [off mike] Yeah…

Wilson: Why?…

Martin: [off mike] [garbled] two minutes…

Wilson: Sure.. yeah… You feeling a bit under pressure?

Martin: [off mike] No. Yeah. I just don’t really like having to talk about things.

Wilson: Really? [long pause with muffled sounds and voices in back] Have I upset him?

Champion: I don’t think so.

Wilson: [slightly off mike] …I don’t think I said anything conscious[garbled]…

Champion: No, no, I don’t think so…

Wilson: Well, let me ask you [the interview continues on]

Then at the very end of the interview, Chris Martin returns for one last question:

Wilson: Chris, can I just attempt to.. to begin bringing you back by… reminding you of a couple of things you said in the… [Martin: uh huh] before the album was released, you said the process was about letting the garden grow unkempt, letting the bloodhound off the leash [Martin: uh huh] uh, so you were… consciously trying to… find new musical territory then…

Martin: Um… [clears throat] yes, yes, yes… exactly [pause]

Wilson: [Closing show] Reluctant pop star Chris Martin…

My transcription of parts of the full interview which you can listen to online.

Wilson had made some comments during the early part of the interview about Coldplay’s newest album being morbid, and Martin had disagreed with that, but it wasn’t entirely clear why Martin got up and left.

What’s interesting here is that this was not a live interview; the BBC deliberately left in the sequence I’ve transcribed above. I’ve noticed more and more mainstream media doing that - leaving in things from an interview which would have been removed in the past.

I wonder if it’s partly a response to the more free-wheeling podcasting of the internet and also the ability of bands (or anyone) to post the full transcripts of interviews to try and counter what they see as mainstream media taking things out of context.

Freelance writer Hrag Vartanian blogs about being misquoted:

I was interviewed by Steve Malanga for a recent profile of Bushwick, Brooklyn for City Journal and found this paragraph that proved to me (yet again) that you should always be cautious about giving interviews, even to nice guys–which Steve obviously is:

Some early arrivals claim that landlords hoodwinked them into thinking that they were moving to an already gentrifying Williamsburg. “I was looking for a place I could afford to live in on my own,” remembers freelance writer Hrag Vartanian, “and the price was right here, though the place still had an edge to it. Our super was an ex-con who would regale us with stories of the local drug trade that used to be here. I quickly figured out this wasn’t really Williamsburg.”

There are a couple of factual errors in this short paragraph (go figure), so I wrote the author to let him know and he did respond rather nicely but I wanted to set the record straight.

1. I never thought I was moving to Williamsburg but East Williamsburg, very different places.
2. Also, I liked Bushwick for its edge, not in spite of it.

Doesn’t take much to dramatically change the story. Getting the area name wrong is just sloppiness, but misconstruing Vartanian’s attitude is a trickier issue. At least what’s quoted here might possibly be mistaken for being in the “hoodwinked and disappointed camp,” but presumably there was more dialogue with Vartanian which revealed his intent.

However, simple interviewing techniques, like asking questions which repeat what you THINK is the subject’s meaning or just asking to clarify the meaning, can prevent such misinterpretations.

A fascinating new trend in interviewing has emerged during the course of the US presidential primaries: the live-to-web editorial board interview. Sitting around the table with editors of a media outlet is a long-standing tradition, but the idea of streaming it live over the internet adds some interesting new dimensions.

Take the editorial board meeting between Hillary Clinton and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on May 23, 2008. The ensuing controversy over Clinton’s reference to the Robert Kennedy assassination came, not from the Argus Leader, but from the NY Post, which was monitoring the interview via the web and picked up on the line.

Argus-Leader Executive Editor Russell Beck put it this way:

…we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.'’

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.'’

Just as the posting of interview transcripts on the internet after the fact has been revolutionizing the ability for the public and other journalists to assess context or find other stories, the idea of live-streaming interviews makes that possible in real time. It also opens up more possibilities for misinterpretation and misuse of statements - it’s no longer the small group of people in the editorial board meeting who can use what you say.

So watching what you say becomes even more important these days.

During a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader’s editorial board on May 23, 2008, which was streamed live over the internet, Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Robert Kennedy in a passing comment about nomination campaigns historically lasting into June. That mention became the centre of a firestorm.

Here’s the headline from the newspaper that apparently (see the end of this article) started the whole controversy, the NY Post on May 23, 2008: Hillary Raises Assassination Issue

Here’s a typical transcript from Clinton’s interview, this one happens to be from the Huffington Post:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

Compare that sloppy and context-less quotation with my own transcription from video:

Clinton: …there has been this urgency to end this… and… you know, historically that makes no sense um, so I… I find it a bit of a mystery.

Reporter: You don’t buy the party unity argument [inaudible]

Clinton: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough, ah….you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, um… somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy… was assassinated in June in California, ah… You know, I don’t understand it, and you know there’s lots of speculation about why it is, but ah…

Only in this longer version do we get the referent of “it” when she says “I don’t understand it” and only in this version do we get the sense of her fishing around for what to say; that it was not said without hesitation, etc.

Even without the accurate transcription, it’s still hard to accept that anything less than intellectual dishonesty allows reporters to come away from that video accusing Clinton of “raising the specter of assassination” instead of saying she was referring to June as the common denominator in her two examples.

And to see how the public picks up on misinformation by reporters and commentators, listen to some of the comment frenzy from the MSNBC website:

OK, I have been trying to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, but this bit of insanity does it for me.
please make them stop.
Kathleen (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:28 PM)

OMG! Do any of you Clinton supporters have a defense to this??? This woman isn’t just immoral–she’s AMMORAL!!!
Liz in SD (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:30 PM)

NOTE: To Clinton’s chagrin, there is VIDEO of her making this invocation which will be playing all weekend long on this long family weekend. YOu can get the video on the Arbus Leader website and, soon, I am sure, on YouTube
Geoff in Brooklyn (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It is ridiculous Mo Elleithe, saying that Clinton should stay in because you know other candidates have been assassinated before the convention. This is sick that Hilliary Clinton would even raise this as a reason for her to stay in the race. She has gone absolutely crazy!
MK, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It’s enough to make politicians or anyone refuse to speak another word in public…

Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton or even the Democratic Party. I am a supporter of being as accurate as possible in reporting.

UPDATE:

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post had one of the most level-headed comments I’ve seen on this issue:

What Clinton meant seems clear. Previous nomination fights have gone well into June and, therefore, there is no reason for this one to be cut short before every state has its say. (South Dakota is one of the last two states to vote, on June 3.)…

Unfortunately for Clinton, using the RFK assassination to prove her point was — at best — a poorly chosen example. Many in the black community have expressed fear about the possibility of assassination as it relates to Sen. Barack Obama — the first African-American candidate likely to be one of the major parties’ nominee for president and raising the matter (in any manner) is widely regarded as poor form.

He also links to a commentary by Sioux Falls Argus-Leader Executive Editor Randell Beck, part of which I’ll repeat here for the record because it illustrates how these things can happen:

Clinton, visiting South Dakota for the third time in the weeks leading up to our last-in-the-nation June 3 primary, met with our editorial board May 23 for a 50-minute session focusing on state, regional and national topics. And like a handful of other newspapers across the nation, we live streamed the interview on our Web site. That means you could go to argusleader.com and watch, in real time, as Clinton answered our questions about energy, ethanol and a host of other topics.

And you won’t be surprised to learn that we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.'’

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.'’

Vaguely connecting Clinton’s comments about the Kennedy assassination to threats against Obama, the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House, the story quoted part of what Clinton said in our interview. Then it went to Obama’s campaign for a response: “Sen. Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Viewed from a certain philosophical vantage point, Clinton’s comments might have been news, maybe even big news. But at least for a few hours, in the superheated environment of a national political campaign, context didn’t matter much.

A TV interview with New Zealand celebrity Nicky Watson late last year became an instant classic after this part of the encounter was repeated over and over in the MSM and the blogosphere:

Watson: “I must have called [her lost] dog’s name a million times and I hope that when he hears my voice he will come to me.”
Interviewer: “You’re hoarse.”
Watson: “No, my dog.”

Cue the sniggers.

I know I had a good laugh when I first read this, but after seeing the actual segment, I realized that three important things got lost in this transcript:

1) The way the interviewer says “you’re hoarse” does not convey the meaning of “you must be hoarse?” or “you sound hoarse” but rather, the inflection indicates a mere statement with no sympathetic overtone, making it easier to misconstrue the meaning. Add to this the fact that “you’re hoarse” follows right after “he will come to me” and it’s not hard to imagine someone accidently thinking that the interviewer is referring to the “he” and not to “a million times.”

2) In written form, we see “you’re” and we understand the meaning, but the interviewer, like most people, mispronounces the phrase and it sounds more like “your” instead of “you’re.”

3) On the clip of the interview, there sounds to me like an edit before “You’re hoarse,” so we can’t be certain of actual flow of the conversation.

So, don’t believe everything you think you see in a transcript, listen carefully to interviewer’s questions, and don’t agree to interviews when you’ve been up all night looking for your dog.

You can see the full segment here.

Here’s a NZ media personality’s take on how the program handled the segment:

[It’s not ok] to waste four minutes of everybody’s lives with a piece of nonsense aimed at mocking a desperate woman who’s lost her dog.

Jon Greer blogs on B-Net - Catching Flack about when it’s not a good idea to insist on email interviews. He tells how the Ann Arbor News was writing a series about universities letting athletes take easy courses to maintain their scholarships:

The paper sought an in-person or phone interview with [University of Michigan] president Mary Sue Coleman, who would only agree to an email interview, which the paper declined. So as a result, the series ran without comment from the leader of the university.

Greer then offers his own take on some cases when it could pay for interviewees to insist on email interviews:

when time is short and the interview subject doesn’t have time for a verbal interview; when the journalist has a known track record as a bully, distorter or poor interviewer; and when the interview subject has something terrible to hide and wants to avoid as much scrutiny as possible.

Sometimes you just have to wonder where an interviewer’s mind is…

I’m watching a morning show and they are interviewing [homeless] survivors of a wave of tornadoes that hit Arkansas. Apparently one of these tornadoes hit before the sirens could go off…

Interviewer: So tell me, there were no warning sirens for this one. How does that make you feel?

Husband: Like we don’t have a house.

Interviewer: So without a siren, how did you know a tornado was even coming?

Wife: I looked out the window.

Read the full post at Attraversiamo.