I wrote, "they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them."
We check facts and quotes to ensure that we are being accurate and fair.
Would you prefer being misquoted? Or would you prefer having improper contact assigned to your words?
Nobody ever called me, my boss or my friends to verify this summer has been extremely hot or what my favourite food is.
Also: just getting the words correct doesn't help if you cut the part where I explained what happened.
Exactly. I'm very aware of that.
The problem is both good journalists and bad journalists call to do fact checks, -good journalists to verify they got the facts correct, bad journalists to provide legal cover before they quote you out of context to build the case they want to build anyway.
So, when someone call you and want to verify what you said I'll recommend being very sure that you get it exactly right and so clear that they cannot misunderstand you.
Defending yourself against a journalist might easily become a case of "have you stopped beating your wife? How hard can this be, yes or no?"
When people get defensive with me for being conscientious, my instinct is always to dig deeper. I'm sure that holds true for many others.
You might get them to publish a retraction (since it wasn't true) but hasn't the damage already been done?
What when those same papers write stuff that is technically true (but leave out why it was done)?: "founder sends millions to foreign bank account." "Founder declines to comment." ?
When you get negative coverage, accept it as the other side of the earned media coin. It is more effective than advertising because it has the potential to be negative. If there was never negative coverage, earned media wouldn't be worth pursuing. And, if you dig into the negative coverage, you'll often learn a lot from it. So, when you get negative coverage, email the journalist, thank them for writing about you, reaffirm that you're always available to talk, and then ignore it.
If an outlet has a history of attacking you, consider why they are attacking you and if the attacks have merit. If it's because you've been difficult in the past, you need to find a good PR person and get some media training in a hurry. You specifically want a PR person who entered the field through journalism, not marketing. Your PR person will be to work with the initial storm. If you caused the mess, you likely need to be hands off during this stage. And then, you need media training so that you don't offend a media outlet again.
It sounds like you have a rough time with media. Do you use the word 'exclusive'? If so, are you sure that you know what it means? Aside from lying, or being evasive, the best way to offend an outlet is to misuse the word.
Retractions don't happen very often, and unless you have very serious evidence, they aren't even worth going for. In the absence of serious evidence, a crafty editor will use your quest for a retraction as an excuse to keep writing about you. The goal is always to get them to stop writing, not give them reason to write more.
And frankly, publications will always write things that are technically true without adding any context. Never assume that this is because of malice because truth is, they likely don't care enough to be malicious. The sooner you get over this idea of a big, bad malicious media, the sooner you will learn how to work with them.
That is quite a misunderstanding of my position. What do you take me for?
They don't need to be all positive at all. My point just shouldn't be actively lying or misleading.
> If an outlet has a history of attacking you, consider why they are attacking you and if the attacks have merit.
Done. (And it is not about me, and I'm in a position where it would be useful for me to know if there was something.)
> It sounds like you have a rough time with media.
Personally? Not at all.
> And frankly, publications will always write things that are technically true without adding any context. Never assume that this is because of malice because truth is, they likely don't care enough to be malicious. The sooner you get over this idea of a big, bad malicious media, the sooner you will learn how to work with them.
My question is rather: how long should we accept this (i.e. baseless smear campaigns agains companies and/or individuals)?
Mostly media does a great job and I respect and actively (i.e. by donating or keeping subscriptions I don't need) support great journalism even if I don't agree with everything they write.
But sometimes some journalists are really destructive. It is those cases I'm talking about. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then at some point, shouldn't the abuse of a weaponized pen be punishable? That bar should be high, yes, but at some point (inciting hatred against nations or ethnicities using made up allegations should be a good example) I think most people would agree that society should have some way to correct it. The question is just exactly where that bar should be.
And again no, this isn't about me. Personally I never had problems with media going after me, this just happens to have bothered me over years as I've seen certain journalists go after other people for what turns out to be no good reason. I'm luckily not aware of many cases though, but what I've seen has made me hesitant to talk to media (and Gell Mann amnesia also isn't as strong as it used to be anymore either).