Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantilla
I know a guy who is an expert in his field, who is often asked for an interview for radio and/or TV.
After a few blatant edits that completely change what he said, he will no longer agree to be interviewed unless he is allowed to record its entirety.
Several interview requests have been cancelled. Weasels.
|
Many years ago I was consulting on some pilot efforts for exchanging safety/regulatory info between industry and government electronically. One well known, very large petroleum company graciously agreed to help and be the guinea pig in a couple of areas. I gave an interview to a "reporter" at a trade rag about our project. Rather than a story of "industry/govt working together to improve a process," she decided to slant it toward "big oil company is failing to send data on time and is breaking the law." I guess she needed a story with conflict and a villain in her simple mind.
I was mortified and repeatedly called her to issue a correction before the oil company lawyers saw the article - but she blew me off. Fortunately, very few people actually read this trade rag, apparently, and it just faded away. Very small example, but one I will never forget when I consume the news. There's good reporting and news out there, but it is so often obscured by bias, BS, and personal agenda (or in the OP's example, commercial interest, which we tend to forget is there with big media outlets like the Globe).