So a journo in an interview puts a statement, you agree and then next day its the headline.

So a journo says: “Do you think the residents are getting a bit hysterical about this issue, I bet you’d rather it just calmed down.”

You say “Yeah”.

Headline next day says OOB slams “hysterical” residents.

So does this technique have a name in the journo trade?

It’s called being a reporter.

It’s not really a ‘trick’, it’s maybe misconstruing what you said to make the story more dramatic, in which case you should maybe think about asking them to print a clarification.

As far as the headline goes; it’ll probably have been written by a sub-editor with a view to ‘selling’ the story to readers. ‘OBB wishes things would calm down’ doesn’t have quite the same whiff of inflammatory cordite about it.

Next time, you could always ask nicely if the journo will let you sanity check the story before publication – some will, some will take it as an affront – but it’s kind of how some journalism works and always has done, though it’s arguably exacerbated by a traffic-obsessed media.

I’ve always thought its interesting that the media have mis-identified and mis-described ‘Trolling’ as it occurs on the internet – using the word instead to describe instances of intimidation and abuse rather than something closer to Socratic Irony. You wonder if thats an accident or because real trolling is too close to the tactics journalists and editors employ.

It’s called naivety. It’s also why pols generally make the statement they want to make, rather than answering questions put to them.

I refuse to give them statements or comments about incidents now. They’ve misquoted me a couple of times.

It’s called naivety.

That sounds like victim blaming

I think it’s simple a case of being “stitched up” .

Thanks everyone. I’m still looking for the name for the trick/technique of then saying something, you agreeing, then them quoting it as your words.

I reckon it must have a name/term.

But yeah, trotting out statements (preferably in writing) is the way to go.

I used to be friends with a reporter, i learned :-

1 Reporters don’t have friends they have sources,

2 There is no such thing as off the record ,

3 The story is sketched out before it is researched , research finds the ” facts” to fit the story.

4 If you can’t find the facts to fit the story get creative.

5 A story without Drama and Hyperbole is not a story. If none see 4

I think in sales it’s called ‘assumptive questioning’ though I’ve never – and I am a journalist – heard it referenced as a journalistic technique. Then again I’m not a tabloid hack…

Edit: I don’t think it’s fair to generalise about journalists any more than it is with other professions: some are incredibly conscientious and fair, others aren’t, but there’s no universal truth.

Edit: I don’t think it’s fair to generalise about journalists any more than it is with other professions: some are incredibly conscientious and fair, others aren’t, but there’s no universal truth.

I think its the atmosphere within which any journalist is prepared to work – you can be the most concienctious and fair minded writer – but if through the prism of editors and subeditors – you know the story that reaches the page isn’t the best representation of the truth then what are you doing? Its not journalism even if its what we’ve come to expect from journalists.

It’s just a loaded question isn’t it?

“Prime minister, have you stopped beating your wife yet”

Yes – prime minister admits beating his wife
No – prime minister admits beating his wife
I’ve never beaten my wife – “scandal as prime minister forced to deny allegations of wife beating”

I think its the atmosphere within which any journalist is prepared to work

Define ‘any journalist’ – do you actually mean ‘some journalists’? The trouble with lazy stereotyping is that it exists beyond journalism.

The OP is a pretty straight example of asking a question and getting a clear answer. However, it’s unsatisfactory in that, beyond the headline, as a writer or a sub-editor, I’d want a direct quote from the person along those lines, rather than some kind of paraphrase. Which is why you always ask a follow-up question which is open eg ‘why do you think that?’ so that the interviewee’s opinion is clearly expressed and beyond doubt.

The trouble with not getting the follow-up question sorted is that IME you do get the occasional interviewee who has ‘buyer’s remorse’ when they see their (usually unpalatable) opinions in print, and claims never to have said anything of the kind.

I’m still looking for the name for the trick/technique of then saying something, you agreeing, then them quoting it as your words.

TBH, if it is presented as a direct quote and you didn’t actually say it, I would call it misrepresentation. The inaccuracy comes in the writing up of the story rather than the interview technique.

They are trying to get you to accept the premise of the question.

Don’t.

Define ‘any journalist’ – do you actually mean ‘some journalists’? The trouble with lazy stereotyping is that it exists beyond journalism.

I’m not saying that all journalists are the same – I’m saying that the circumstances that journalists can work in are different. So I meant any individual journalist. Otherwise I would have said all journalists.

Journalists and police will twist your answers to suit their own agenda. Never answer questions from either.

In journalism it’s called a leading question. (Ex Beeb reporter here)

If you are speaking to a journalist you aren’t having a polite conversation. No matter what questions they ask, make your point, make your point & repeat ad nauseam – deal with the question but, unless an answer suits your position go elsewhere! At least thats what I was taught. Also, why I much preferred live TV or Radio for interviews rather than print having been royally shafted by the Sunday Times early in my career!

I have had that on a previous occasion, nothing major; son had it with a local reporter when a simple “yes” turned into “he said” – not ideal. Lazy journalism IMO.

If this thread is a defence of Andrea Leadsom, then the audio is here.

Her words were her own – not “put in her mouth” by a journalist.

Her words were her own – not “put in her mouth” by a journalist.

Her words couldn’t possibly be read as saying “Being a mother gives me an edge on May” though, nor that
“she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’” because that was the headline.

You either haven’t listened to the tape, or you’ve listened to a different one to me!

I refuse to give them statements or comments about incidents now. They’ve misquoted me a couple of times.

don’t think it’s fair to generalise about journalists any more than it is with other professions: some are incredibly conscientious and fair, others aren’t, but there’s no universal truth

No offence, and i am sure there are good ones, but you are up there with politicians as lying bastards in my book

I know a few who work for the DM and dont believe a word they write, worse they know its total BS. I am sure there are good eggs in the profession but in general they are paid BS.

Not aimed at you i have no idea on your professional capabilities or otherwise.

Her words couldn’t possibly be read

Your default on here really is to take the most ludicrous view imaginable, of the facts, then argue it to death.

This is going to be amongst your hardest, or cleverest, scribbles.

No offence, and i am sure there are good ones, but you are up there with politicians as lying bastards in my book

Excellent, with sweeping generalisations like that, you should maybe consider becoming a journalist. No offence or anything 🙂

There’s certainly no leading question in Leadsom’s case, she digs her own grave with that one. It’s a formal interview in which she is invited to draw out the differences between herself and May in the context of a leadership battle. The difference she chooses to point out is that she has kids and May doesn’t, with the implicit suggestion that it affects the way she would choose to lead the country.

The fact she is whining about being misinterpreted just emphasises her inability to construct a sensible message before she opens her gob. Which some voters might think is an important quality in a future PM.

I always give them statements or comments about incidents now. They’ve never misquoted me, journalists are trustworthy individuals in general.

🙂

she chooses to point out is that she has kids and May doesn’t, with the implicit suggestion that it affects the way she would choose to lead the country.

Did you actually listen to it?

Really carefully because I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’, do you know what I mean?

How can that be an implicit suggestion that the difference between them is that she has kids and May doesn’t?

Excellent, with sweeping generalisations like that, you should maybe consider becoming a journalist. No offence or anything

Superb I genuinely laughed out loud at that

Your skills with words is unmistakable.

I really did not mean it against you there are some great , noble and honourable journalists out there [ as there are politicians] but many are not noble or honourable.

Really carefully because I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’, do you know what I mean?

is it because she followed it up with this?

But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country. A tangible stake.

“She possible has nieces nephews, lots of people. But I have children who are going to have children who will directly be a part of what happens next.

Had she stopped where you kindly did , and for unknown reasons,then fair point. However she did not
Bit like when someone goes i am not racist and then goes on to be racist but you just quote the first bit.
She was foolish and she might not have meant to say what she did but she did say it.

Personally having kids has not altered my politics but IO have seen it alter others. My brother for example started caring about the environment when before kids his attitude was **** it i will be dead when it goes belly up. Overall though I think its weak to argue you will be a better PM just by virtue of kids.

Really carefully because I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’, do you know what I mean?

I don’t want this to be about you being wrong, and me being right, do you know what I mean?

But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country. A tangible stake.
“She possible has nieces nephews, lots of people. But I have children who are going to have children who will directly be a part of what happens next.

But you’re wrong, and I’m right. 🙂

“I have had that on a previous occasion, nothing major; son had it with a local reporter when a simple “yes” turned into “he said” – not ideal.”

This is exactly what I’m asking about: A conversational agreement is then used as a direct quote.

I’m not sure leading question covers it.

No, I don’t think it’s leading question in the sense of – in legal cross-examination – leading the witness.

I don’t know. I know a friend of my wife’s – who retrained as a journalist, all high ideals – was very put out when I suggested they all had a story / angle / opinion with which they wrote a story – she was adamant that they reported “the truth”. There was no acknowledgement that the story was always going to be a matter of opinion, and personal writing..

[Edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question – although Presumptuous Question is closer possibly..

Local press? Most times you know anything about a story, the holes or wonky assumptions are pretty easy to spot. This week I was promoted to ‘event organiser’ rather than ‘the big mouth who’s number happens to be in contacts book’. All good fun in our case and generally good publicity. Not Woodward and Bernstein, just regular people with feet of clay just trying to get the job done.

Never ever say ‘yes’ in answer to a question from a journalist as you are endorsing the content. If you are answering a question, do it with a statement of your view / the facts as you see them. That way it’s harder to put words in your mouth. And then stop. Besides leading questions, if you wait for a couple of extra seconds, an interviewee will suddenly decide to fill the gap with all sorts of interesting waffle which can expose ‘inconsistencies’ if they exist.

To be honest whilst I’m not keen on either candidate for prime minister, someone who fluffs a relatively sympathetic interview doesn’t pass a basic competency test.

To be honest whilst I’m not keen on either candidate for prime minister, someone who fluffs a relatively sympathetic interview doesn’t pass a basic competency test.

Too right. She should watch a past master in action:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8[/video]

Back in the 1970s I was a trainee accountant and was also on our town pageant committee. The treasurer said he was struggling a bit to work out the final accounts so I said I’d have a look.
The headline in the local paper was “Team of Financial Experts Investigate Missing Pageant Monies”

“Too right. She should watch a past master in action:”

Nothing wrong with that, bang on message.