Journamalism
I don't usually talk about my work but I think I can do this without getting trouble and in any event I can't resist.
One of my colleagues recently spoke with a journalist on background, and was pissed off to see himself quoted, but not named, in the article since some of the things he said could be misinterpreted and in any event were not meant to be quoted. (This same journalist had done the same thing to me in the past, but since it wasn't anything controversial, I figured maybe I misunderstood the concept of "on background" and didn't raise a big stink. Live and learn.)
Fast forward to today. I get an email from a journalist for the same publication--let's just say it's obscure enough that I'm confident no readers of this blog have ever heard of it--asking questions that she wouldn't have had to ask about a document if she had only read the document (which she admitted she hadn't done) or even the press release that accompanied it. In other words, she wanted me to write her article for her. In light of my colleague's earlier problems I thought about blowing her off, but I thought I'd at least send her a quick note. Because, you know, I'm nice like that. This is a condensed version of the resulting email exchange:
ME: This is background information, DO NOT QUOTE ME, but here are answers to your (stupid) questions (which you would have found if you read the paper, but whatever).
HER: Great! Can I quote you on that?
ME: Maybe you missed the opening of my earlier email where I said DO NOT QUOTE ME. So, uh, no.
HER: What about if I don't identify you by name or organisation but just describe your role generically?
ME: What part of "no" do you not understand? NO!!!! NO!!!!
PRESS OFFICE (thankfully interceding): Do NOT quote him. Do you understand? DO NOT QUOTE HIM!!!
I know things like that would happen to Gretchen from time to time in her old job as well, so it's kind of a wonder I'm such a news junkie--it really does make you wonder how often journalists screw things up that you never know about.
One of my colleagues recently spoke with a journalist on background, and was pissed off to see himself quoted, but not named, in the article since some of the things he said could be misinterpreted and in any event were not meant to be quoted. (This same journalist had done the same thing to me in the past, but since it wasn't anything controversial, I figured maybe I misunderstood the concept of "on background" and didn't raise a big stink. Live and learn.)
Fast forward to today. I get an email from a journalist for the same publication--let's just say it's obscure enough that I'm confident no readers of this blog have ever heard of it--asking questions that she wouldn't have had to ask about a document if she had only read the document (which she admitted she hadn't done) or even the press release that accompanied it. In other words, she wanted me to write her article for her. In light of my colleague's earlier problems I thought about blowing her off, but I thought I'd at least send her a quick note. Because, you know, I'm nice like that. This is a condensed version of the resulting email exchange:
ME: This is background information, DO NOT QUOTE ME, but here are answers to your (stupid) questions (which you would have found if you read the paper, but whatever).
HER: Great! Can I quote you on that?
ME: Maybe you missed the opening of my earlier email where I said DO NOT QUOTE ME. So, uh, no.
HER: What about if I don't identify you by name or organisation but just describe your role generically?
ME: What part of "no" do you not understand? NO!!!! NO!!!!
PRESS OFFICE (thankfully interceding): Do NOT quote him. Do you understand? DO NOT QUOTE HIM!!!
I know things like that would happen to Gretchen from time to time in her old job as well, so it's kind of a wonder I'm such a news junkie--it really does make you wonder how often journalists screw things up that you never know about.
<< Home