Both Dan Rather and 60 Minutes have long been known for their willingness to take an interview and parse it so the words of parties involved come out just the way the story’s producer wants it to. Rather infamously did this in his expose The Guns of Autumn, and later in a show depicting Vietnam veterans in the same light as had John Kerry. He also took General Westmorland down the primrose path. When he attempted it with Bush 41, George walked out, and Rather never forgave him the snub. The crew at 60 Minutes, especially Mike Wallace, have consistently done the same. It makes for good television, and sometimes even achieved something worthwhile.
The Rathergate Report is the current hot topic, and Jay Rosen has some advice for CBS News. I think it is good advice, but Patterico doubts it will ever happen, and provides an example of why:
Goldberg tells a story that is relevant to Jay Rosen’s suggestion. A CEO who was the subject of a hostile 20/20 interview recorded the interview himself. Goldberg reports that the CEO, “fearing his comments might be taken out of context and that the interview might be edited to make him look bad, took the unedited transcript and video of the entire interview . . . and put it out on the World Wide Web.”
ABC’s reaction? They were not happy. Were they worried about their copyright? Nah. They were worried about their loss of control over what went the public got to hear. As an ABC Vice-President told the New York Times: “We don’t want other people attempting to get into and shift the journalism process.”
And another former ABC News Vice President, now a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, called the CEO’s action “a not-so-subtle form of intimidation.” Got that? In this former network news executive’s view, making the entire interview available — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — that’s “intimidation.” But editing it so that the CEO looked worse than he would have in an unedited interview — that’s not “intimidation,” it’s “journalism.”
That’s how these people think.
One thing the new media can do is eliminate this as a control issue. But it requires active involvement by the players. And it is becoming clearer that interviewees need to protect themselves. Hugh Hewitt addresses the value of blogs to corporate executives, but I’m not sure he had this in mind.
Those being interviewed by a “major media outlet” might want to consider taping the interview themselves, overtly if possible, and covertly if not. Interviewers ask for releases, and restrict the use of any recording. But if refused, they would have little choice. After all, they asked for the interview. If they don’t get it, do they have a story? And if they know the full interview is available for release, would they be less likely to parse it for spin?
“Protect yourself” is one of Hewitt’s implicit maxims. The new media can help.