The Media Interview

Jason McIntyre co-creator, writer, and editor, of the blog The Big Lead interviewed on Sports Media Guide:

Q. Do you do your interviews by e-mail or phone?

A. Kornheiser was over the phone – he doesn’t do e-mail. I prefer e-mail. I started doing it by e-mail because I was anonymous at the time and didn’t feel like I could call a major journalist like TJ Simer. Why would he take the time to talk to an anonymous blogger. I started out by e-mailing eight or ten questions.

People are more comfortable with e-mail because they know they won’t be misquoted. They can be far more eloquent explaining themselves in e-mail. Some people aren’t wordy but they might be wordsmiths on e-mail. I much prefer doing e-mail interviews. That was a sticking point with Richard Dietch (SI). He said no.

A week or so ago I mentioned the controversy over statements made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a taped encounter with journalist Tom Zytaruk in 2005 in the driveway of MP Chuck Cadman’s widow’s home. The statements allegedly showed Harper acknowledging that payments had been offered to Cadman when he was alive in an effort to get the independent MP to switch over to Harper’s Conservatives.

Fast forward three years and yesterday the Conservatives filed court papers to prohibit further use of the tape on the grounds that it has been tampered with. Citing two audio experts, the party claimed in the news conference that edits had been made to the tape recording by Zytaruk. Two common themes ran through the media reports I saw about the news conference:

1. The Conservatives only said that the tape had been altered, but did not say whether or not Harper’s comments were misreprented or changed because of the alleged editing.

2. Zytaruk denied having tampered with the tape.

However, when I read the Globe and Mail’s article, it seems there was more to this than we were hearing from other media:

…Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, said in a later e-mail that the edits changed the meaning of Mr. Harper’s comments, and that one of them inserted a question to misrepresent his answer.

Mr. Soudas said that change “creates a question that was never asked” about an allegation that his party had offered a $1-million life insurance policy to terminally ill Mr. Cadman, an Independent, and that Mr. Harper replied, “I don’t know the details …”

“When the PM says he does not know the details, he is not answering a question about the insurance policy for [Mr. Cadman’s wife],” Mr. Soudas said in the e-mail.

and regarding journalist Tom Zytaruk, the situation was not so clear cut as a simple denial of tampering:

The man who made the recording, B.C. journalist and author Tom Zytaruk, Wednesday denied altering the tapes, calling the Conservatives’ allegation a “desperate statement.”

However, he said that he had stopped his tape recorder momentarily when he thought Mr. Harper had finished speaking. When Mr. Harper turned back, Mr. Zytaruk resumed taping. He insisted that neither he nor Mr. Harper said anything during the interruption.

“We’re talking milliseconds here,” Mr. Zytaruk told The Globe and Mail in Vancouver.

Both of these revelations substantially change the story - alleging misrepresentation is more important than alleging editing, and Zytaruk’s admission that the tape was stopped is one plausible explanation for what the experts are calling “edits”. Good on the Globe and Mail for going deeper on this story.

From a PR management standpoint, do you think the Conservatives should have pursued this? Because it’s given the tape additional legs in the media. Or should they have let slightly-awake tapes lie (no pun intended)?

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.

With all the hype about social media, search engine placement and advertising, David Leonhardt reminds online businesses not to forget the off-line media when it comes to getting publicity. For example:

* The media are now working increasingly online. The online and offline worlds are converging more than ever before. Articles that appear in local papers, industry magazines and even commentary on radio broadcasts find themselves on the Internet. That can often mean powerful links to your web site. Publicity offline means promotion online.

* In the mainstream media, you are trustworthy. If they see it on TV or in the newspaper, people believe it. (Funny, they SAY they don’t trust the media, but their actions speak louder.) Since web marketing is about relationships and trust (That is your strategy, right?), you can build that relationship with people who are only now getting online or who may not even be online for another couple years. By the time they are ready to buy from you, the relationship has already begun because they have carried your offline credibility (that’s the biggest value of media coverage) with them onto the Internet.

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.

Here’s a blog reader, commenting on the blog of a writer who is a social media marketer, working in part on Second Life…

You did pretty good [on the TV interview], it’s fun to see someone we know being on the News!

There’s still something about being on broadcast TV, even in the middle of the social media revolution…

A new Canadian study, commissioned by Apex Public Relations, finds that mainstream media sources in general are still far more trusted than social media such as blogs and social networking sites.

According to the APEX PR Influencer Report, conducted by Leger Marketing, TV and radio top the credibility scale. In fact the top five most credible information sources were all traditional media: radio (67 per cent); television (66 per cent), national newspapers (66 per cent), regional newspapers (62 per cent) and national business magazines (52 per cent).

Interestingly, the traditional news channels also beat out friends and family, who had a credibility rating of 55 per cent, and co-workers with a rating of 38 per cent.

While traditional media has not drifted into obscurity as some pundits had predicted, consumer-generated and other new media, such as blogs, wikis, podcasts and social networking sites, are definitely on the charts, as consumers choose from the ever expanding array of information channels. In fact, one in three consumers is using a social networking site per week and 19 per cent are visiting blogs. Not surprisingly, new media was considerably lower on the credibility chart with blogs, for example, having a 10 per cent credibility rating and podcasts garnering a 7 per cent score.

Taking into account age differences, it’s not surprising that young people were more likely to trust news websites or blogs, but here’s one that did surprise me: “78% of consumers who are 18 to 24 view national newspapers as a credible source (national average is 66%)”.

Simon Wakeman makes an interesting observation in his discussion of this study:

The important factor here could well be that with “old” media I think there’s trust in the channel - people trust their usual newspaper - whereas, taking blogging as an example of “new” media, people don’t trust blogs per se, as there are thousands of blogs they are exposed to, but they trust bloggers instead. And this trust takes time to build up, just like it would in a face to face friendship.

Wrestler Chris Jericho was on Fight Network Radio recently to talk about his new autobiography, A Lion’s Tale. I loved his response when asked if he was “sick of media interviews yet”:

I’m happy to talk to anybody. I just did an interview with a fourteen-year-old kid that has his own website. And yesterday I did VH1 … national cable news shows, all the way down to a fourteen-year old kid’s website. So, whatever it takes. I’ll come to your birthday party and do an interview for a hot dog and a glass of orange juice, similar to the match that I had in 1991 when I wrestled at a kid’s birthday party for the same payoff. No ketchup or mustard even!

Great attitude - you have to get out and talk to your audience! Thanks to F4Wonline.com for posting the transcript from which this was taken.

What are people feeling and doing while being interviewed by phone? You can find postings like this one from director Arin Crumley that give you some perspective:

Arin and co-director Susan Buice have a good little collection of videos of their phone interviews - it’s a great way to get some behind-the-scenes info on how interviews work. Their interview with the magazine Moviemaker is particularly interesting because you don’t often hear complete print interviews.

I wonder how the interviewers react to being able to see how their interviewees were really feeling about their questions… rolling eyes, snickers, etc.