Someone may have pointed you to this blog post because you complained that someone’s clip in a news story failed to address something. You may have said something like:
- “She went on about the problems with the highway project, but completely ignored this study showing its amazing benefits.”
- “He was so full of compassion for the poor criminal, but not one word about the victims!”
- “Typical politician – lots of big promises, but no way to pay for them.”
Or words to that effect.
Okay, here’s the thing. When you get interviewed by a reporter, you can talk for 20 minutes about the victim, and then take 20 seconds to acknowledge the social context of a crime. Debunk a study point by point, then as an aside talk about a related issue. Lay out a comprehensive financing plan for a proposal, and then summarize the proposal itself.
… And the reporter can then decide to use that 20-second clip, that related issue, that proposal summary, and nothing else
And often, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. It isn’t the reporter’s job to offer a comprehensive picture of an interview subject’s opinions on a subject; the job is to illuminate the subject itself. If that 20-second clip offers the most articulate, compelling expression of an important perspective on that subject… well, in it goes. If the rest of the stuff the interviewee said doesn’t really fit in with the story, or was said better by someone else the reporter quotes, snip.
Sometimes, I should add, the subject is too complicated for the kind of story the reporter feels able to tell (either because of their own skills, or their estimation of their audience’s sophistication), and they dumb it down by leaving some crucial stuff out. Scientists will likely be nodding in rueful agreement right about now. And once in a while, it’s pretty hard not to think there’s some personal animosity or a political agenda at work. It happens. (Happily, neither the dumbing down nor the animosity has happened to me in quite a while.)
The upshot? The next time you see a clip of a politician, or a professor, or a celebrity, or anyone who seems to be expressing only one point of view, don’t assume that’s all they said on the subject. Or that the format of the interview let them say everything they wanted to.
