I got a call yesterday from Steven Gray, a reporter for Time magazine who was in town today doing an article on student voter registration. He left a message on my voice mail asking for ten minutes of my time. I didn't get back to him so he showed up in my office today. He asked for five minutes, no doubt noticing how busy I was and I politely said no. He comes back with..."come on, just five minutes?"
I told him no, because first, I was busy, and two, I really had no idea what he would do with the video he was planning to shoot of me. He gave a little roll of the eyes and so I asked if I could have an unedited copy of the entirety of what he taped of me. He said "No one does that!" That was the end of the conversation.
He seemed like a nice guy and I have no particular reason to doubt his integrity as a reporter. Except for his instant negative reaction to my request.
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, has suggested that everyone bring their own cameras to interviews. I was a little busy to try that stunt, so I went with the next best thing. I wasn't surprised that the reaction was negative, if for no other reason than I expect my response was pretty much out of the blue.
Not doing the interview is probably a good career move. After all, if Time does you right, you get 15 minutes of fame. If they do you wrong, you get a lifetime of infamy on their website.
No hard feelings Mr. Gray. Next time I won't ask for the tape, I'll take Reynolds' advice and bring my own camera.
UPDATED by IP: Welcome, Instapundit readers! This is our first Insta-lanche, so forgive me for the crashed server this morning. While you're here, I hope you'll take a few minutes to stick around. (And thanks to Mark for taking the actions and writing the post the got us buried with traffic.)
Good for you. I would love to have seen his reaction if you had gotten out your own camera.
I did that once. It was in the days before consumer video, but I brought a tape recorder. This was some kind of investigative social worker, and he was shoving words into my mouth faster than I could spit them out. I sure was glad to have that tape.
Don't you need the other party's permission to make a recording?
"Don't you need the other party's permission to make a recording?"
Since you're giving the reporter the OK to record the conversation, how would a reporter justify denying permission for the interviewee to do the same?
Good idea, denying him the interview. Those Time reporters are known for their hilarious send-ups and unfair editing. Oh, wait, that's the Daily Show!
What are you trying to hide, Mr. Shelden?
"What are you trying to hide, Mr. Shelden?"
Hide?
Mark consented to the taping; it was the reporter who balked at Mark's request for an unedited copy of the tape. What was the reporter trying to hide?
you are incompetent if you have no time
and you are scared of the truth
Reporters like using tape so they can make sure they gets quotes accurately.
If someone says something they shouldn't say it is not the fault of the reporter for reporting it, it is the fault of the speaker for speaking it.
What good would a copy of the unedited tape do? If Time misquotes Mark, what would Mark do, demand a retraction? It is unlikely Time would print a retraction, and bringing it up again lacally would only serve to show the misquote here, requiring yet more clarification about the misquote. "Don't think of a pink elephant" comes to mind. Mark is only a County Clerk in a small county unknown to most. Mark is hardly newsworthy enough to quote, much less misquote.
The opportunity to highlight the skills and efficiencies of the Champaign County Clerk in a national magazine is lost, as is positive news about Champaign County and the region, and now may be correctly shown as at least uncooperative, and at most secretive.
Mark missed the chance to highlight his office and his community, because of some personal, dare I say paranoid, fear of what Time magazine might say.
Sad.
"Mark is only a County Clerk in a small county unknown to most. Mark is hardly newsworthy enough to quote, much less misquote.
The opportunity to highlight the skills and efficiencies of the Champaign County Clerk in a national magazine is lost, as is positive news about Champaign County and the region, and now may be correctly shown as at least uncooperative, and at most secretive.
Mark missed the chance to highlight his office and his community, because of some personal, dare I say paranoid, fear of what Time magazine might say."
In other words, his error was in not falling all over himself at the opportunity to get his name in Time.
By the way, as a former news editor I can tell you definitively that "no one does that" is simply untrue. Lots of interview subjects ask for unedited copies of the interview.
"Mark is hardly newsworthy enough to quote, much less misquote."
And yet here was Time magazine, wanting to interview him, and they felt sufficiently threatened by a simple request for a copy of the tape that they ran away.
Mark's request was entirely reasonable and, in my opinion, wise. I'm still waiting for some reasonable justification for the reporter's refusal to give him a copy of the tape.
and your reason for signing your little note anonymous was?
I used to work for a national figure. I frequently saw his comments between irrelevant factoids that subverted the meaning of both the quote and the data.
I notice that the attacks on Mark come from people who wish to be anonymous. They bear ill will. Mark doesn't know this reporter, has no reason to trust him, and massive evidence exists that journalists can misquote and distort meaning with ease. The very least the reporter could do is give the recording, as Mark has no way of knowing his intentions.
Many MSM institutions have lied to the public so frequently and screwed their interview victims over so thoroughly that many people are wisely choosing to protect themselves from them.
"The opportunity to highlight the skills and efficiencies of the Champaign County Clerk in a national magazine is lost, as is positive news about Champaign County and the region, and now may be correctly shown as at least uncooperative, and at most secretive."
The Times missed the chance to highlight Mark's office and his community, because of they aren't trustworthy enough to give an interview to or, dare I say, honest enough to simply give him a copy of the tape.
"Sad."
The best and maybe earliest example of the prudence in filming your own version of any interview was the 60 minutes hatchet job on Illinois Power and the Clinton Nuclear Plant. Don't know if anyone remembers that but it was back in the 70's or early 80's. 60 Minutes lost all its credibility as a reliable investigative news program for me and turned me into a MSM doubting thomas. Illinois Power put out their own version of the Clinton story by playing the 60 minutes stuff and then weaving in what was left on the cutting room floor plus their own story-line. Impressive stuff. If anyone can get a copy of it on VHS they should watch it.
The only thing that comes to mind is that it might be more work than the reporter was willing to do. Just that if he has to interview say, half a dozen people for an article, and everyone wants a copy, then he has to make half a dozen copies, edit them so the correct people get the correct sections, then send them all out. That's a lot of work to make unnecessary copies of a tape that will probably never be used for any purpose.
It's not "unnecessary" work to create copies of the tape if that's what's required to get the interview in the first place. The media have no one but themselves to blame for this level of mistrust.
"Just that if he has to interview say, half a dozen people for an article, and everyone wants a copy, then he has to make half a dozen copies, edit them so the correct people get the correct sections, then send them all out."
Understood, but I won't concede laziness as a reasonable reason for refusal.
"That's a lot of work to make unnecessary copies of a tape that will probably never be used for any purpose."
That's the thing about insurance - you hope you never have to use it, but you pay for it anyway.
"you are incompetent if you have no time"
Or perhaps he is doing his job as the County Clerk a month before a major election. Or perhaps he isn’t hiring 10 extra employees on the taxpayer dime to do what he could do himself.
The most competent people I know have the least amount of free time because their time is in such large demand.
I disagree that this would be laziness. It would be overhead, i.e. work done to support of his primary task, but not work done toward actually doing his primary task.
It might have been even that no one has ever asked this reporter to do it before. If I'm doing a task I've done many times before, but someone insists that I do it *this* way instead of *that* way, red flags might go off in my head, too. Maybe he was afraid Mark would edit the tape to make him look like a goofball, then put it up on YouTube or something. :-)
It might have been even that no one has ever asked this reporter to do it before.
That's quite possible - I'm sure most of the people this reporter has interviewed started fawning all over themselves the second they heard they were going to be in a national publication. It says a lot that Mr. Shelden stuck to his convictions.
Maybe he was afraid Mark would edit the tape to make him look like a goofball, then put it up on YouTube or something.
Well, at least the fear was mutual then. Except there's a greater history of a journalist misrepresenting interviewees than county clerks misrepresenting journalists. ;-)
Understood, but I won't concede laziness as a reasonable reason for refusal.
It's not laziness. These guys work ridiculous hours for relatively small pay and are often juggling several different stories at one time. I worked a newspaper out of the Chicago suburbs for almost ten years and I don't remember anyone asking for the unedited transcript of anything in all that time. If they had asked, I probably would have found someone else to interview. Few quotes are worth that level of hassle, imo.
What is more interesting to me is why we are reading about this on a local blog. The reporter was well within his rights to find someone else to interview, and Shelden was well within his rights to refuse to be interviewed. Though I will add that in my experience elected officials are usually expected to be available for press interviews on very short notice, at least for the local media. Refusing to give local reporters access is a sure way to create bad press.
But either way, this seems like a no harm/no foul situation. Hopefully the guy got what he needed down here and will write a positive story about this area, regardless of his interaction with our County Clerk.
Odd, nobody here claims that Time wouldn't possibly misquote people; or take them out of context. Even those claiming he should have done it without a copy of the tape only have the "you're not important enough for them to pull these tricks" defense... interesting.
Well, if there's a reason to ask for a tape; the foregone conclusion that everyone thinks that reporters both can, and will misquote and use quotes out of context seems sufficient. Nobody is working under any other assumption... if that doesn't tell you this was the correct choice, I can't imagine what would.
For a definitive answer on this question,,someone should contact Sarah Palin,,,,,,,you betcha!
Well, if there's a reason to ask for a tape; the foregone conclusion that everyone thinks that reporters both can, and will misquote and use quotes out of context seems sufficient. Nobody is working under any other assumption... if that doesn't tell you this was the correct choice, I can't imagine what would.
Anything short of a complete transcript inherently strips some of the context of the quotes. This doesn't mean that it necessarily misrepresents the interviewee or shows that there's malice behind the quoting, but shows that the very nature of quoting someone increases the chance for misrepresenting them.
"I disagree that this would be laziness. It would be overhead, i.e. work done to support of his primary task, but not work done toward actually doing his primary task."
Fair enough - laziness isn't a appropriate way for me to describe it. I still don't think it's reasonable to refuse the request if it's something that makes the subject of the interview more comfortable and trusting and open to discussion. Isn't getting information the point of interviewing someone? If they don't trust you, it's proably best to comply with a perfectly reasonable request to establish that trust.
In my never ending qwest to learn the truth about things,,,I just contacted Time Inc, and they answered they would ask the person involved and get back to me. I hope they do,,,,and when and if I will share this info with all.
If Mark is important enough to interview, then he's important enough for them to spend a little time to copy a tape. Times have changed--very few people trust the MSM, and especially the Times, to be fair, or even accurate. If mark was misquoted, no doubt there would be a correction run on page 86, where they put obituaries, or some other section that few people read, and that would be the end of it from their standpoint. Meanwhile, Mark would be here trying to clean up the mess.
Man I am impressed, I wish the government worked this well,,,Time actually just got back to me with an incident number 10090821, dated and stamped and told me they will be back to me with an answer within two business days.
"No one does that".
Sure they do, they do it all the time. McCain, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Blagovich, Edgar, Thompson, they all get or got unedited copies of tapes, right?
Why shouldn't Mark Shelden be treated the same, just like national or state figures. They all get unedited tapes, don't they?
Note to readers: that was sarcasm. No one gets unedited tapes. No one.
If you don't want to give an interview, don't give one. If you want to be the Queen of England, act imperious.
"If you don't want to give an interview, don't give one. If you want to be the Queen of England, act imperious."
And if Time magazine wants to be trusted by the people from whom they requested an interview, then they need to earn it.
I have had a few of my "15 minutes", and I don't blame you for your CYA request.
Both times, I have been misquoted. In one case, the reporter eliminated part of my comment, paraphrased what was left, and then published that paraphrase with quote marks around it. In the second, my "quote" was made up of whole cloth.
Deal with the 4th estate at your own risk. They have their agenda, and it may not match with yours.
"Many MSM institutions have lied to the public so frequently and screwed their interview victims over so thoroughly that many people are wisely choosing to protect themselves from them."
Many law-enforcement institutions have lied to the public so frequently and screwed their interview victims over so thoroughly that many people are wisely choosing to protect themselves from them.
The difference is that the police can seize your recording equipment.
"The difference is that the police can seize your recording equipment."
And this is something with which I absolutely disagree. I can't think of any good reason for any prohibition on the public videotaping or recording or photographing law enforcement on duty.
Recording equipment is becoming cheaper and easier to carry around everywhere. Soon it will be a standard feature on mobile phones, and then everyone will be able to have a record of what was said.
Never trust the media.
I've had letters to the editor (as well as comments to the online section) which were published in the hard copy of the local paper, edited to change the meaning of my words. Those were deliberate acts.
Even more troubling to me, whenever there is a story in the paper which I have had personal first hand knowledge of , no matter how innocuous (the last time was an obituary where they muffed the age of the deceased) the particulars are invariably wrong...
Remember the Duke Lacross rape case? Besides the District Attorney, and the school faculty, the main offender/driver in that witchhunt was the editor of the News&Observer, Melanie Sill. Melanie's "punishment" for the most egregious example of journalistic malpractice in recent history? She was transfered to my town to be the executive editor of the Sacto Bee.
Newsmen are sloppy at best, deceitful at worst, unaccountable always.
Personally, I think communities should not only allow, but encourage citizens to video tape police in action. It would make it more likely that tapes existed of both positive and negative interactions and job performance of the police.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/012762.php
Interesting thoughts about police video taping as Glenn Reynolds, a UT law professor, is a big proponent of rolling back laws that prevent that.
And this is something with which I absolutely disagree. I can't think of any good reason for any prohibition on the public videotaping or recording or photographing law enforcement on duty.
The law does allow video taping in specific circumstances.
(h) Recordings made simultaneously with a video recording of an oral conversation between a peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person stopped for an investigation of an offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code;
"For a definitive answer on this question,, someone should contact Sarah Palin,,,,,,, you betcha!"
A definitive sign of mental illness is the use of multiple commas in a row.
Personally, I think communities should not only allow, but encourage citizens to video tape police in action. It would make it more likely that tapes existed of both positive and negative interactions and job performance of the police.
I talked with an Urbana cop about that, and he said that cops themselves shouldn't mind being videotaped on the job, but there might be some privacy issues for the people they were dealing with.
The media is not well respected today for the very reasons that Shelden declined (without a full tape of everything that was said). They come in with an agenda and proceed to fit the comments to that agenda. And since they "buy the ink by the barrel", elected officials have had no recourse to unfair editing. All we want reported is what we really said, with the context included. It is incredible how a perfectly inocuous comment can be distorted with "proper" editing.
I hope this is a trend. Tape the interview. Reporters may be less likely to alter the context and everyone wins.
Tom W. how much do you charge per hour for therapy? Right not I pay 200. can we cut a deal? Thanks
In The Last Centurion, John Ringo discussed having an army unit dissect the news media coverage of its own actions, and show the full context and the gross inaccuracies of the MSM. Not a bad idea...Illinipundits plan squared and cubed.
Perhaps if everyone did as IP here did, then the MSM would have to bend, and make a better pretense of finding the truth.
The media has the problem of bias, the problem of low skilled investigators, the problem of limited resources. Not every error is due to them 'trying to get you'; some are due to sheer incompetence in the assigned field. Its more of that 'you're a smart guy, granted you've never heard of 'nanotechnology' before, but you can write up a piece for us in four hours, right?'. Its that idea that a good manager can manage anything, and a good writer can write about anything. Well maybe so, but the key word is 'good'.