Email 3: How to Deal With A Biased Reporter (Pt. 2)
Many people believe that “objective” journalism is going the way of the dinosaurs, only to be replaced by a more insidious form of “opinion” journalism. Although the truth may be a bit more complicated than that—early American newspapers, for example, often had obvious agendas—there’s certainly a lot of evidence to support that trend.
Yesterday, I began responding to a reader named Christopher, who wrote:
“You’ve covered how to deal with aggressive reporters, perhaps a refresher on how to deal with clearly biased reporters is in order?”
Edited interviews are tricky, because you can do (almost) everything right and still have your words taken badly out of context. And if you do make a mistake—something I refer to as a “Seven-Second Stray,” you’ll be in trouble.
So before you dive in and agree to speak to a biased reporter, you’ll need to ask yourself whether you should even do the interview in the first place. There are three primary considerations when contemplating that question:
1. Is the reporter likely to publish the story regardless of whether or not you agree to the interview?
If so, I often argue that it’s best to participate in the interview. That’s because of something I call “The Rule of Thirds,” which states that there are three voices in many news stories—yours, your opponent’s, and the reporter’s. If you refuse the interview, that means you’ll likely go 0-for-3 in the story. But if you participate, you at least have a shot of going 1-for-3. Plus, you won’t look like you’re hiding behind a suspicious “no comment.”
2. How will it look to the audience if you don’t?
Remember that reporters are often the mere conduits through which you reach the audiences that matter most. So forget the biased reporter for a moment and ask yourself how it would look to your audiences if you decide against commenting. Is the reporter so obviously biased that your supporters wouldn’t hold your absence against you? Or would your audiences expect you to at least try to get your viewpoint across?
3. How does the reporter treat sources he or she disagrees with?
Some reporters, though “biased,” can also be fair. Sound paradoxical? Consider yesterday’s example of Bill O’Reilly and the liberal book author. Although O’Reilly was “biased” against the professor’s viewpoint, he also allowed him a forum to articulate his views. If the reporter has a strong point-of-view but represents opposing viewpoints fairly, you should be more inclined to agree to the interview.
The three questions above are all “big picture” strategic points, not tactical ones. So assuming you’ve answered those three questions and decided to proceed with the interview, your next step is to read two more posts, which will help you deal with the actual interview:
Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Please like us on Facebook here.