mrmeval said:
I've seen the local WRTV channel six news butcher an interview to make the person look strange and to get them to 'say' what they wanted. It's even easier to do this with the new digital equipment.
I can't speak for the people up the street, but where I work -- one of the other stations -- stories are edited for
time, not politics. (Actually, I just told you where I work, if you know downtown).
Reporters are about as lazy as anyone else and they usually have around a minute and a half to tell the story. Snippets are usually the most anyone gets. It's pretty hard to be coherent in sound-bites.
Be very nice to the news photographer ("cameraman"). He or she is a journalist, too, and will do most of the actual editing.
Have two other cameras set up recording the interview for your records.
Just videotape it yourself or record the audio. There is no need to be fancy. If there is actual distortion of what you said in the aired version, you can go right to the News Director with it. They're all for "punchy" stories but plain lies are a no-no. Out-of-context stuff may fly, but edits that reverse the meaning of what you said are not the policy of any newsroom.
Also attempt to get in writing by their legal department that the whole interview will be aired, NOT a redacted version.
Not going to happen. My employer doesn't have an in-house legal department and I don't think any other station in town does, either. Nor will they give you a podium. A minute and half, remember? --And a lot of that, the reporter wants for "face time."
Control the message by being succinct. Talk in sound bites and think them through first. You want to say things in a way that makes them difficult to edit down.
But remember it is not
your story. It's the reporter's story. That alone is good reason to approach any interview with caution.
--Herself
