Althouse: "Almost every time I’ve talked to a reporter has gone this way: they had already decided the narrative beforehand."

November 22, 2014

"Almost every time I’ve talked to a reporter has gone this way: they had already decided the narrative beforehand."

"I’m never being asked for information — I’m being used for quotes to back up their predetermined story, regardless of whether it’s true. (Consider this when you read the news.) Misquotes usually aren’t mistakes — they’re edited, consciously or not, to say what the reporter needs them to say."

Writes Marco Ament, with a vivid example of a NYT reporter working on a story about hipsters moving to Hastings on Hudson. The story became "Creating Hipsturbia." And Ament says: "The article, which was mostly bullshit, is slowly making itself more true. And our town is doing very well from it."

The town made the news ≈ the news made the town.

42 comments:

I'm Full of Soup said...: Althouse - you should check out HARO which means Help A Reporter Out. It is a service where journalists solicit people to help them research or be part of a story they already want to write.; 11/22/14, 7:08 AM
Sean Gleeson said...: Mr. Ament is exactly right, in the main, but I believe there are exceptions: breaking news (wildfires, hurricanes, murders, explosions, and such) are usually reported straight, for a day or two, while the news is still breaking. The reporters really do try their best to gather all the information and push it out as quick as they can. (This rush to scoop the competition often leads to errors, but that is a separate problem.) And most critics (of art, literature, movies, restaurants, etc.) write honestly, not forming opinions before seeing the work they’re reviewing. But most of the reporting is narrative-driven. Even the breaking news tends to morph into just-so stories after about two days. We all remember the narrative of Katrina, don’t we?

And his advice never to speak to reporters is only half right. The important thing is to figure out whether they are on your side or not. The story will have a “good guy” side and a ”bad guy” side, and if you are one of the good guys, you should feel free to speak to them. They can help a lot.; 11/22/14, 7:12 AM
Carnifex said...: I'm shocked...just shocked...that reporters don't actually report the news, but want to shape and improve the world. To their view point to be sure, because no one else is smart enough.; 11/22/14, 7:15 AM
Carnifex said...: I must disagree with Sean about breaking stories being mostly accuracy driven. Just look at the coverage of shootings. Every shooter is a right wing tea partier until someone actually finds out that they're a leftist, then they become tragic figures pushed to it by a society that abuses them.; 11/22/14, 7:18 AM
Bobber Fleck said...: A brief perusal of any GW Bush Presidential press conference will quickly establish the press "had already decided the narrative beforehand".; 11/22/14, 7:31 AM
Hagar said...: And sometimes they can't stop.

Notice that so many high-powered news outlets are still talking about Obama's "Executive Order," but there is no Executive Order on immigration, and there won't be. He quite clearly stated he is just going to write "letters" to the various federal agencies.; 11/22/14, 7:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: Dad called the local student paper The Daily Stupid and ended up refusing to talk to them because he would always be misquoted.

Whenever I am talking to a journalist ("journalist") for quotes, I make certain they understand the science I relay, because, you know, for a "journalist" science is hard -- it's probably one of the reasons they opted for a major like journalism.; 11/22/14, 8:04 AM
traditionalguy said...: Is this about a reporter? It could as well be about a trial lawyer or a church preacher.; 11/22/14, 8:49 AM
traditionalguy said...: The worst part is that the inquiring mind that interviews you for a story really only called as cover for using your name to say scandalous things.

Gotcha!; 11/22/14, 8:52 AM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: This is nothing new or unknown. Nobelist Murray Gell-Mann posited the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect".

Basically, you read something in the news about which you are involved or otherwise have personal knowledge. You get upset because they got most if not all of the major facts wrong. Then you read something where you have no personal knowledge and accept it without hesitation.

I've been involved in 3-4 events which made the papers. In every.
single.
instance.
they got major things factually wrong.

Never trust reporters.

John Henry; 11/22/14, 8:57 AM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: In 1989 I was at a dinner in Newark sitting next to a reporter from the Louisville Courier Journal.

Somehow the discussion of the McMartin Pre-School hoo-hah came up and I will never forget this lady's response. It was in the papers, it had to be true. Reporters wouldn't write it and the paper wouldn't print if it if it were not factually true.

I wanted to puke on her but I have better manners than that.

For those who don't remember the 80s:

The McMartin preschool trial was a day care sexual abuse case of the 1980s. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990.

From Wikipedia. Emph added

John Henry; 11/22/14, 9:04 AM
F said...: For a brief period in the early nineties I was Bill Bennett's Press Officer. This was when he was the "Drug Czar" and it was a short period not because I got canned, rather because I was filling in for a colleague who took a fortnight's vacation.

Anyway, I got a call just about every morning from a well-known and pretty well respected Time Magazine writer who would say something like: "would you say Bill Bennett thinks. . ." or "would Bennett say. . ."

Had I answered in the affirmative, the headline on the story would have been "Bennett says. . ." He was clever in creating the "quotes," but they were in all cases bogus quotes. Bennett was careful with his words, but this journalist wanted something and figured the best way to get it was to write it first than look for confirmation.

I have often wondered if he had the Press Officer for every government agency on speed dial and just made the rounds each morning looking for a quote that would get him in the subsequent edition.; 11/22/14, 9:19 AM
Fernandinande said...: "The man who reads nothing knows more than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."; 11/22/14, 10:01 AM
RecChief said...: "I’m never being asked for information — I’m being used for quotes to back up their predetermined story, regardless of whether it’s true. (Consider this when you read the news.) Misquotes usually aren’t mistakes — they’re edited, consciously or not, to say what the reporter needs them to say."

No Shit. How old is this guy? It started after Watergate, when every reporter straight out of j-school wanted to be the next Woodward or Bernstein.

You should read this TNR article by Michael Lewis

I really liked this quote: “Whenever I hear someone went to journalism school I immediately assume they are inferior in one way or another,” says Joel Achenbach,; 11/22/14, 10:16 AM
RecChief said...: traditionalguy said...
Is this about a reporter? It could as well be about a trial lawyer or a church preacher.

You're in the ten ring!; 11/22/14, 10:18 AM
Big Mike said...: Too many 21st century journalists got into the field "to change the world."

Trouble is, changing the world is easy. Changing it for the better is downright hard. They're not up to it.; 11/22/14, 10:22 AM
grackle said...: I've been involved in 3-4 events which made the papers. In every.
single. instance. they got major things factually wrong.

For over 20 years I worked for an organization that was frequently in the local newspaper – I'd estimate on average between once or twice a month. We used to post the clipped articles on the break room bulletin board. Without exception they ALL contained errors – sometimes minor, some major. Me and a few colleagues played a game – "Find The Mistakes."

Names were very, very hard for them to get right. They either misspelled them or attributed quotes or job titles to the wrong person. But that is minor. And sometimes funny. Often they misquoted the substance of replies to a reporter's interview questions. As in the above comment, " … they got major things factually wrong."

The local TV news outlets were about half as error-prone.

My advice?

If you are a major figure and are being interview by any of the networks or cable news outlets try to insist that the interview be 'live,' just like the Presidential candidate debates. This prevents them from editing the interview to fit their narrative. Failing that, always record any interview with a newshound for later deniability after they invariably play with the facts and your words. Some damage will have already been done but at least you may save your job and retain the respect of your superiors.; 11/22/14, 10:31 AM
MisterBuddwing said...: Some years ago, one of my sisters had cause to be interviewed by a British radio reporter who was doing a feature of some kind. They were in a Korean restaurant, and the reporter wanted my sister to order the meal in Korean, what with her being Korean-American, so she could include it in her feature.

The only thing is, this sister doesn't know more than a dozen words of Korean. (Neither do I.) But she tried to please the reporter and ended up only confusing the waitress - what a painfully funny scene that must have been.

When I heard this story, I shook my head. If I'd been in my sister's place, I would have politely and gently let the reporter have it. I would have told her I spoke no Korean at all, and then I would have said, "This wouldn't be a case of, you've already half-written the story, and now I'm supposed to help you fill in the blanks, would it?"

As someone marginally involved in the news biz - more copy editing than reporting - I'd like to think I try to avoid stereotypical thinking, but at the same time realize how easy it is to fall into that trap. (I remember someone once handing me a story about a person found dead under sleazy circumstances in a "hotel room." I was like, "Wouldn't that have been a 'motel room'?" And it turned out I was right. Stereotypes, indeed!); 11/22/14, 10:33 AM
The Godfather said...: I wonder why anyone agrees to talk to a reporter, unless that's their actual job, i.e., a press or public information officer. I suppose it's a thrill to see your name in print, but not when it makes you look like an idiot, or is used to support a position that is the opposite of what you believe.; 11/22/14, 10:42 AM
Paco Wové said...: For Gell-Mann, but not by Gell-Mann. (Pedants gotta pedant.); 11/22/14, 11:27 AM
Joe said...: The Michael Lewis article was interesting. It, perhaps inadvertently, highlights the ultimate problem with University. Despite claims that a college education is necessary, most hiring managers don't give a shit about your degree; at best they simply want you to have one.; 11/22/14, 12:02 PM
richard mcenroe said...: "Mr. Ament is exactly right, in the main, but I believe there are exceptions: breaking news (wildfires, hurricanes, murders, explosions, and such) are usually reported straight, for a day or two, while the news is still breaking."

'THEY'RE EATING EACH OTHER IN THE SPORTSDOME!" — Thanks, Shep...; 11/22/14, 1:04 PM
richard mcenroe said...: In every instance where I have been interviewed by the press, they have always pressured me to give them quotes to support a preconceived story line.

This is probably worse in TV, because the "reporter" (or "dummy", as they are known in the trade) is working to a script worked up by his/her producer en route to the story scene, racing a tight evening deadline. In short, they have to convince themselves they know what their story is before they even reach the story and anything that would involve a time-consuming revision of the narrative must be jettisoned...; 11/22/14, 1:09 PM
Jason said...: As someone who's been that reporter, there are two kinds of calls: "What happened, or what is happening," and "Tell me what you think about what happened or is happening."

My first priority was always to get the first kind of calls done first. Then if I had time I'd try to get a reaction, or balanced set of reactions, from different experts or thought leaders.

In these cases I had a pretty good idea of what they were going to say already, because I was familiar with them and their writings on that very subject. I was almost never surprised. Though I tried very hard to get things right and honestly represent both their words and the spirit of their words in print.

But I almost always knew their views ahead of time. That's why I called them!; 11/22/14, 4:48 PM
MikeB said...: Minor correction: his name is Marco Arment (not Ament).

Unless you were deliberately toying with the saying: "Say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right."

If so, then well done.; 11/22/14, 5:04 PM
Ken Mitchell said...: Reporters are generally stupid and almost ALWAYS lazy. If they were smart, they'd be doctors or engineers or lawyers, and if they were willing to work, they'd be plumbers or mechanics or carpenters. All of whom make more money than reporters do.

Many of them do little or no research; they paste together press releases and made-up stuff, and publish that. (c.f. Stephen Glass) If there's anything technical, they probably don't understand it well enough to accurately describe it.

The worst are the hairspray-heads on TV news; many of them cannot even read aloud the stories that other people have written for them. Of course, the editors, producers and writers are "journalists" themselves, so it's entirely probable that the story that the pretty face can't read, wasn't written all that well in the first place.; 11/22/14, 5:55 PM
Ken Mitchell said...: RecChief said...

traditionalguy said...
Is this about a reporter? It could as well be about a trial lawyer or a church preacher.

You're in the ten ring!

Yes, but lawyers are SUPPOSED to be advocates, and sermons are supposed to deliver moral messages described as anecdotes. "Good reporters" (of which there are virtually none, but might possibly exist) are supposed to gather correct information and describe it in a way that people can understand.; 11/22/14, 6:00 PM
Zach said...: I've got to say, every time I've been interviewed by a reporter, they've done a pretty good job.

Maybe it's that articles about science have a stock format:

According to a recent paper published in A, scientists have recently discovered B. C, the paper's main author, says that this discovery may eventually lead to progress in the field of D. E, who works in a similar field, found the discovery very interesting, but cautioned that more research is necessary. A full copy of the paper can be found at F.; 11/22/14, 7:11 PM
Pascal said...: How can you expect differently? Doesn't everybody already know?

There is no truth in Pravda and there is no news in Izvestia.

Oh. Wait...

Well, Soviet-style media works like this and so much worse.; 11/22/14, 8:21 PM
Joseph said...: During a controversy on bag searches on NYC mass transit, I told a reporter "I do not consent ..." and she looked eager for me to continue. She was disappointed when I said "... to being blown up."; 11/22/14, 8:28 PM
Robert said...: Was interviewed by a local newspaper when I donated a Kidney to my sister. At the time I was in the Navy. The reporter asked me what rank I was, and I said I was a E-3. He wanted to know what the "name" was so I explained very carefully "The ranks name is 'Fireman', because all E-3's in the engineering department are called that, regardless of what their actual job is, and it refers to the old job of stoking the boilers manually. I'm actually an electricians mate."

What did the story that ran in the paper say? That I was a fire fighter in the Navy...; 11/22/14, 8:29 PM
wildswan said...: Very local stories are often fairly accurate even in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. But the more national and "significant" they become, the more inaccurate and finally mythical they are. So the only reason to read them is to find out to what extent some given myth is being promoted and, if possible, why. It's like Kremlin watching in the days of the Cold War. You find the hierarchy of power by seeing who stands close to the leader of the Communist party. Similarly, now that there is a cold war between the American people and the media, you find out the media hierarchy by seeing what stories are on page 1 or page 23.; 11/22/14, 8:33 PM
Dick Stanley said...: Absolutely true, but more than half the time an editor assigned the story with a particular bent to it.; 11/22/14, 8:43 PM
Nate Whilk said...: Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge. --Erwin Knoll, editor, "The Progressive"

Carnifex said... I'm shocked...just shocked...that reporters don't actually report the news, but want to shape and improve the world. To their view point to be sure, because no one else is smart enough

"Newspaper Publicity" in Observations by Mr. Dooley (1902): Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward. They ain't annything it don't turn its hand to fr'm explainin' th' docthrine iv thransubstantiation to composin' saleratus biskit.; 11/22/14, 9:07 PM
Tarrou said...: Adapting an old infantry joke....

What do you do if you find yourself in an elevator with Zarkawi, Haniyeh and a reporter, and your weapon has only two rounds left in it?

Answer? Shoot the reporter twice and go hand to hand with the other two.; 11/22/14, 9:59 PM
Drago said...: Zach: "I've got to say, every time I've been interviewed by a reporter, they've done a pretty good job.

Maybe it's that articles about science have a stock format:

According to a recent paper published in A, scientists have recently discovered B. C, the paper's main author, says that this discovery may eventually lead to progress in the field of D. E, who works in a similar field, found the discovery very interesting, but cautioned that more research is necessary. A full copy of the paper can be found at F."

You forgot the letter designation for scientist fashion analysis and denigration.; 11/22/14, 10:25 PM
Drago said...: Pascal Fervor: "How can you expect differently? Doesn't everybody already know?

There is no truth in Pravda and there is no news in Izvestia."

Shhhhhhh.

Lawdy lawdy! You're gonna give Robert Cook and AReasonableMeltdown the vapors.; 11/22/14, 10:27 PM
Firehand said...: There're reasons I refer journalists as being sorry excuses for reporters; 11/22/14, 10:32 PM
mitrii said...: In October a Palestinian drove his car into a bus stop, killed a three-month old baby and wounded 8. AP headline was “Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.”
In November two Palestinians stormed a synagogue, killed 5 and wounded many before being shot by police. CNN headline was "Israeli police shot dead two Palestinian civilians".
These are just the most recent cases. This is how an average westerner is informed about Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades.; 11/23/14, 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...: I wonder how Althouse came across this story.

Being a listener to Marco's podcast (Accidental Tech Podcast), I was surprised to see him mentioned here.

It's a rather unexpected intersection on the Venn diagram of people I follow on the 'net.; 11/23/14, 2:00 AM
M. Sean Fosmire said...: You have to distinguish between information and confirmation. A source may be contacted to ensure that another source's information is accurate. It certainly can appear, with such a contact, that the reporter has "already decided the narrative."

Like trial lawyers, reporters can be skilled at dealing with their sources, or they can be less so.; 11/23/14, 6:51 PM
Marty said...: My experience as a minor public official here in California confirms the general line in the post and commentary. Shocking bias among most, especially the TV folks--although the print bias was slightly different than the TV spin. TV goes for sensationalism first, while print goes more for ideology. But there were a couple print writers with great intelligence and integrity, and I ended up only communicating with them, and referred the rest to our official flack.; 11/24/14, 11:18 AM