The Media Interview

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.”

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.

John Stamos, late of Full House, now of ER, seems to be following in the footsteps of Paula Abdul, or rather, the missteps. On a media tour in Australia earlier this week, he apparently slurred and strangely gesticulated his way through one TV interview, as related by host Olivia Bishop on the blog of WHO magazine:

I knew something was wrong when instead of taking my hand to shake it, former Full House heartthrob John Stamos pulled me into a hug, telling me “you smell nice” when we were introduced before our interview on June 25.

In the country to promote his new role as Dr Tony Gates on medical drama ER, the actor arrived 30 minutes late for his first interview at 11am, because he was (according to a Channel Nine publicist) “napping”.

Unable to keep his eyes open, the actor slurred his way through a 15 minute chat with me, which I cut five minutes short, due to the actor’s erratic behaviour. Struggling to sit up, falling into the cushions perched beside him and constantly rubbing at his face, the 38-year-old attempted to answer my questions…

So what about his bleary-eyed appearance and muddled speech? “I’ve had the worst jet lag,” he said. “ I can’t get over it.” Before asking me: “I wonder if I had beer, would that work?”. We don’t think so…

As the actor arrived in Sydney on Thursday, jet lag seemed an unlikely cause for his demeanour.

Stamos was then taken to task for this performance the next day in The Daily Telegraph by television writer Stephen Downie. Stamos tried damage control on another TV show the next day - including attacking Downie - but did more damage. See what you think:

After this second interview, all of Stamos’s remaining interviews were cancelled and he was on a plane back to the US. According to his publicist:

John has been traveling extensively for the past few weeks in Greece, Egypt and Tokyo and had a difficult time adjusting to the time difference in Australia, which in turn led to many sleepless nights since his arrival. He acknowledges that his behavior was completely out of character during these interviews and apologizes.

Side note: The double-edged publicity sword which we call the internet rears its ugly head again - without YouTube and blogging, this story might have stayed down under, so to speak.

Here’s a cautionary tale about being misrepresented through the editing of an interview. It concerns a Columbia University professor of the philosophy of physics, David Albert, who agreed to be interviewed for the movie What the Bleep Do We Know? This pseudo-documentary, released in 2004, claims that quantum mechanics proves, among other things, that reality is a construct of the mind, and Albert’s interview clips make it sound as if he endorses such claims.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But how to get the word out, particularly when the film somehow managed to get theatrical release and went on to major sales (by documentary standards), including DVDs? Enter the internet, in the form of an expose article in Salon, which reveals the film as an infomercial for a new age cult group, and put on record one of Albert’s few responses to the film:

“I don’t think it’s quite right to say I was ‘tricked’ into appearing,” he [Albert] said in a statement reposted by a critic on “What the Bleep’s” Internet forum, “but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film … Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”

“I certainly do not subscribe to the ‘Ramtha School on Enlightenment,’ whatever that is!” he finished. Albert provided Salon with an excerpt from a piece he’s writing on the subject, in which he says, in part, “I’m unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis.”

It was fortunate that Salon published this much of the forum posting, because the link they provide to the forum no longer works, and if you go to the What the Bleep site and click on forums, they’ve been moved to a new location, which also doesn’t work (as of the date of this posting). [And in case the Salon article ever disappears, sites like mine are preserving the words as well.]

A couple of years later, in an email exchange with Annie Wagner of The Stranger, Professor Albert reflected on the process which led to the original interviews:

When I was interviewed for the first film, I had no idea what sort of a film it would turn out to be, and I had no clue as to the background or the agenda of the producers. This may have been at least in part my own fault. I was not as skeptical, I was not as inquisitive, as I ought to have been. Had I known then what I know now, I would certainly not have agreed to appear in that film.

Now, why was Annie Wagner writing about this 2004 film in 2006? Because it was re-released that year with an additional hour of material - but it still included the scenes which Albert, at some of the film-makers’ own events, had publicly denounced as complete misrepresentations.

What do you do in a situation like that? Professor Albert chose to be re-interviewed for the expanded version of the film:

I decided… to do whatever I could to insure that the sequel (or the director’s cut, or whatever it is) contained at least a suggestion - however short and fragmented and out of context and pushed off to the side - of what an intellectually responsible treatment of these questions might actually sound like. Whether or not that attempt was a success, whether or not it did any good, whether or not it would have been better (in the end) for me to insist that I be withdrawn from the sequel altogether, only time will tell. [from the Wagner email]

This is a good case study of the dangers involved in allowing yourself to be interviewed for a project about which you have little information; how many people in the movie Borat are kicking themselves for not asking more questions or getting something in writing to protect themselves?

It also demonstrates how the internet can be a powerful double-edged sword. What The Bleep Do We Know? has a Long Tail because of the power of the internet. You’ll find thousands of links and postings about the movie - most of them positive that I’ve been able to discern so far - and word about it continues to spread as I’m sure do sales. At the same time, those who’ve been misrepresented in the movie and those who oppose its pseudo-science have just as long (if not as large) a tail for their publicity efforts.

Check out this detailed account on the Huffington Post of how the message of a media interview can get misrepresented in the editing process and perhaps more importantly how the misrepresentation certainly seems deliberate.

According to business psychologist and author Debra Condren, she was approached by a producer from ABC’s Nightline, who was looking for a “different perspective” from that offered in a book called The Power of Nice; how being nice to others can improve your business relationships and your bottom line. Condren, whose book is called amBITCHous, stated over and over that the difference in her perspective is that

we women also need to realize the importance of being nice to ourselves, which means it’s sometimes necessary and okay to confront hostile people in the workplace, but that we can do it with integrity and in a respectful way that doesn’t humiliate the other person.

Condren says the producer seemed to understand this message and on that basis, Condren agreed to do the interview. But when it came time for the shoot, things went downhill:

The interview started late, and went long because Jessica kept asking me the same questions, phrased slightly differently, over and over again: “Is it okay to just be a bitch sometimes if you have to confront people?” “Is it okay to come down hard if someone is attacking you in the workplace?” “Isn’t being nice the last message women need to hear? Haven’t we heard that our whole lives?”

I started to get the distinct sense that they wanted me to assume the nickel-plated bitch mantle.

When the interview ended - four hours later - Condren had stuck to her message about taking care of your interests with integrity and still treating others with respect. However, when the program aired, she realized that sticking to your message is no guarantee that your message will come out clearly.

Deftly paring away the leading set-up questions, and chopping away the beginning parts of my sentences, the clips showed my comments completely out of context, making me sound like a–you guessed it–total bitch advocating chilly tough love in the workplace. They’d cut out every single word I’d repeated endlessly about the importance of honoring ambition with integrity and respect.

And then Condren makes an interesting distinction:

I can’t say I wasn’t quoted correctly. I can say that the way that they took a fraction of my message, cherry picked my quotes, and didn’t even remotely completely include what I actually said utterly misrepresented the heart of my message.

This touches on something I’ve thought a lot about. If your quotes are sliced and diced and woven into a written narrative, it’s easier for the reader to understand that this is the journalist’s account. But when you see the person on camera and hear their exact words; it’s easier to forget this is also a journalist’s account, an edited version of the interview. The individual words undoubtedly are those of the interviewee, but the context, the message, the relationship of the words are virtually under the complete control of the journalist. That’s a lot of power. Use it nicely.