Authenticity and message discipline – are they mutually exclusive?
After her wooden, some might say robotic, performances during the general…
By Robert Taylor on the October 16th, 2017
Print interviews are more dangerous than live broadcast interviews. Let me repeat that. PRINT INTERVIEWS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN LIVE BROADCAST INTERVIEWS.
In a live broadcast interview the viewers take what they’re given and make up their own minds about the bits that are most important to them. But in a print interview – perhaps lasting 30 minutes – the journalist is free to pick on one thing, one comment, and make it the whole story.
Andrea Leadsom won’t be the last person to learn this the hard way. Yes, she was at pains to tell Rachel Sylvester of the Times that she didn’t want the Conservative leadership election to be about how she has children and Theresa May doesn’t. But she then went on to say how having children gives her a “very real stake” in Britain’s immediate future. And it’s all too easy for a journalist to interpret that as meaning that anyone who is not a mother lacks such a stake.
From Sylvester’s point of view, Leadsom’s comments must have seemed like gold dust. A journalist is paid to find and write stories, the bigger the better, regardless of how good or bad it is for the person or organisation involved. And, boy, did Sylvester do that, slapped right across the front page under the headline: “Being a mother gives me the edge on May – Leadsom”. As we’ve seen, it was so damaging that it has resulted in Leadsom stepping down from the leadership contest altogether.
This wasn’t gutter journalism. It was simply journalism. Sylvester sensed the possibility of a good story, and framed her questions accordingly – gently and with faux innocence, probing Leadsom about her views on motherhood and politics, and inviting her to say more than she intended, until she got what she was looking for. Fair cop.
Listening to the recording gives us a fascinating insight into how big news stories come about. Leadsom, a relative novice at major interviews of this sort, had no idea that she was stepping into Sylvester’s net. Then, once the article had been published, she was horrified and cried foul. That’s entirely understandable. But, later, she admitted to being naïve.
In future, Leadsom’s sure to tread more carefully with print interviews, and to be a little less trusting. She’ll remember that however friendly, obliging and innocent a journalist sounds, their job is to find hard news.
As a result, she’ll also remember this important lesson: never tell a reporter anything you wouldn’t want to see as the headline the next day.
July 11th, 2016
After her wooden, some might say robotic, performances during the general…
By Robert Taylor on the October 16th, 2017
A lesson that Britain’s Left is yet to learn
By Robert Taylor on the May 15th, 2017