If I use President George Bush as an example, a direct and accurate quote but embarrassing to him is what the public have come to expect.
President Bush is constantly quoted as having said something ridiculous, which in turn provides entertainment for readers! An inexact quote making Bush appear more eloquent would have readers confused - they wouldn't be used to it.
Click here
for an example of something ridiculous said by Bush
And it seems journalists enjoy publishing his mistakes, capitalising on the fact he isn't exactly the most popular world figure at the moment. The media always seem on hand to publish any of his verbal errors, which is obviously beneficial to them. I think they will miss him when he is no longer president!
In my own opinion however, I do not think quotes should be manipulated.
Even if a quote is grammatically incorrect, it would probably fit in with the story. But I understand that too would depend on the angle of the story.
Conley and Lamble do mention that the best interviewers understand and empathise with all sorts of people.
For example low economic areas are not always as well versed as other people. So if crime happened in that area and someone was quoted as saying something which may not necessarily make sense, it could well still fit in with the story.
I'm not sure if that's a clear example, but I wanted to give the example while still being politically correct and non-stereotypical!
Or if a tourist is quoted, but their English is obviously not as fluent, I think readers enjoy the different spin tourists have on particular words/phrases.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to the story you are writing as well as the source you are quoting.
2. Perhaps that would depend on the form of intimidation used! I personally have nothing against it if it means the exposure of information benefits the public. But it must be remembered that professionalism should always be administered above any other interview method. I don't know if I would necessarily, or deliberately, set out to intimidate an interviewee - I think I would feel slightly guilty than if I had sourced the information in a professional, honest and trustworthy manner. But then again, we are talking about journalism...!
A story of relevance, and proximity, to Newcastle would be the exposure of Swansea political member, Milton Orkopolous.
Mr Orkopolous was exposed for providing teenagers with drugs and money in exchange for sex. That is one story I believe should be exposed and I would have nothing against the way in which the information was discovered. I do however feel for Mr Okopolous's family, they are victims of another kind in this instance.
I do think it really depends on the information being exposed as well as how high profiled the source is. Obviously the higher their profile, the more newsworthy the exposure becomes. If Joe Blo from the corner store was exposed for overcharging the local kids when they bought lollies, I don't think the public would be as concerned as if a well known local identity was abusing children. Overcharging the kids is not right, but I personally don't feel it would be as big a news story as something more highly profiled.
Above all, interviewers should not feel intimidated by interviewees and vice versa but if the intimidation is conducted subtly, perhaps the interviewer/interviewee can get away with it. I'm not a good liar, or very subtle, so I think I will just stick to being straight forward!
3. If the source falls for such tactics, then I don't see the problem!
However, I do believe professionalism again needs to be maintained at all times.
If a bit of harmless flirting, and nothing more, can result in obtaining information, then so be it.
If the flirting, or 'personal chemistry' crosses a line, that is when problems arise. In such a situation, I would feel it is the journalist who would come under more scrutiny than the source.
The source could in fact expose the journalist and their credibility will be questioned. Have all the interviews that journalist has ever conducted been 'above board'? Maybe the journalist deliberately targeted a vulnerable source to gain the information and that is plain wrong.
I believe professionalism is the key to sourcing accurate information.
4. As mentioned above, I believe the credibility of the journalist is at stake if they become too close to a source and it becomes public knowledge.
I don't think it's not fair to judge though. People have affairs every day of the week, why should this instance be any different? It simply comes down to professionalism. I must admit I am unsure of the ethical practices surrounding this kind of circumstance, but if we look at the medical industry for example, their careers can be at stake if they become too close to their patients. I guess the same should apply to journalists.
Depending on who the journalist becomes too close to, some people may believe the journalist has made their career based on being "too close" to their sources.
But should there be a responsibility on the interviewee to maintain their professionalism? After all, it takes two to tango!
5. I would have to say George W Bush is the most inarticulate public figure in the news!
I feel no sorrow for him because he is the president of the USA. Not only should he have his own degree of vocabulary and eloquence, but i'm sure most of the time his speeches are scripted and therefore he would have his PR people doing most of the work!
If I interviewed Bush and he made a grammatical error in his quote, I would definitely not correct it. I think it would be more newsworthy if his mistakes were published - the general public find it quite amusing that he is so inarticulate.
KELL'S SAY
I have used my answer in question 1 as "Kell's say" for this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment