As someone who’s dealt with journalists & interviews for over 25 years, I would just add: if you do talk to any journalists for any reason, be very clear up front about (1) whether the interview is ‘on the record’, ‘off the record’, ‘background’, or ‘deep background’, (2) ask for ‘quote approval’, i.e. you as the interviewee having final approval over any quotes attributed to them, (3) possibly ask for overall pre-publication approval of the whole piece, so its contents, tone, and approach are aligned with yours. (Most journalists will refuse 2 and 3, which reminds you they are not your friends or allies; they are seeking to produce content that will attract clicks, eyeballs, and advertisers.)
Also, record the interview on your end, using recording software, so you can later prove (if necessary, in court), that you were quoted accurately or inaccurately.
If you’re not willing to take all these steps to protect yourself, your organization, and your movement, DO NOT DO THE INTERVIEW.
This piece is a useful resource about these terms and concepts.
Aside from recording the interview, which is illegal in some states if you don’t tell them beforehand that you’re doing it, I’m pretty sure none of this works. They just ignore it, lie and say whatever makes you feel safe, and treat it like a normal interview with no stipulations.
This is my memory from 2019 and my source might not have been reliable or up to date. This is not legal advice.
Many journalists are honorable and professional, and will follow the ethical norms of the profession. Some aren’t honorable, and won’t follow those norms.
If in doubt about someone’s credibility and integrity, don’t talk to them.
Generally speaking, if they’re employed by a large, established news organization with a decent reputation (e.g. The Economist, NY Times, Financial Times), they have a fair amount to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
If they’re freelance, or employed by an online sensationalist outlet that’s notorious for slander (e.g. Gawker), then they have less to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
Julia—thanks for a helpful update.
As someone who’s dealt with journalists & interviews for over 25 years, I would just add: if you do talk to any journalists for any reason, be very clear up front about (1) whether the interview is ‘on the record’, ‘off the record’, ‘background’, or ‘deep background’, (2) ask for ‘quote approval’, i.e. you as the interviewee having final approval over any quotes attributed to them, (3) possibly ask for overall pre-publication approval of the whole piece, so its contents, tone, and approach are aligned with yours. (Most journalists will refuse 2 and 3, which reminds you they are not your friends or allies; they are seeking to produce content that will attract clicks, eyeballs, and advertisers.)
Also, record the interview on your end, using recording software, so you can later prove (if necessary, in court), that you were quoted accurately or inaccurately.
If you’re not willing to take all these steps to protect yourself, your organization, and your movement, DO NOT DO THE INTERVIEW.
This piece is a useful resource about these terms and concepts.
Aside from recording the interview, which is illegal in some states if you don’t tell them beforehand that you’re doing it, I’m pretty sure none of this works. They just ignore it, lie and say whatever makes you feel safe, and treat it like a normal interview with no stipulations.
This is my memory from 2019 and my source might not have been reliable or up to date. This is not legal advice.
I think this is overstated.
Many journalists are honorable and professional, and will follow the ethical norms of the profession. Some aren’t honorable, and won’t follow those norms.
If in doubt about someone’s credibility and integrity, don’t talk to them.
Generally speaking, if they’re employed by a large, established news organization with a decent reputation (e.g. The Economist, NY Times, Financial Times), they have a fair amount to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
If they’re freelance, or employed by an online sensationalist outlet that’s notorious for slander (e.g. Gawker), then they have less to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
In my brief and unwanted foray with the media, I had people in my building called “noisy fuckers” in a quote printed by The Economist (perhaps because we weren’t cooperative with them and didn’t give them an interview on the record), got doorstepped when I was expecting a phone call, and had a bunch of inaccuracies printed by The Times. Always remember Gell Mann Amnesia is a thing when reading newspapers!