I don't think I've ever been quoted before. While at
ApacheCon, I went to see if there were
any free Cokes left from lunch for Casey
and I, and my quest was briefly interrupted by someone from
Linux Today who wanted to ask me a
question. I agreed, thinking she was going to ask some insightful question about
Apache, open source, or something relevant. Nope, she asked me about SCO. How
boring.
I basically expressed my lack of interest and indicated that the news from
Slashdot was about all that I knew of
SCO's actions. What ended up in
the article
was quite a bit different. The statements attributed to me aren't necessarily
things that I disagree with (although I have no idea what four things in Linux I
could possibly be talking about), but it is weird having quotes made up and
attributed to me. I know a lot of open source developers are quoted pretty often.
Is this pretty much the way it goes?
I wonder if Tim really said the things
attributed to him in a
similar article
by the
same writer.
I never did find any Cokes. Sorry, Casey. :-)
No.
Matts on 2003-11-25T08:02:59
A journalist should never just "make shit up". Even if you don't disagree. This goes way beyond anything I've ever heard of (and I've been quoted quite a lot in the last year or so). Once or twice I've had a journalist twist what I've said slightly to make a better story, or in one case, give what I said a whole new meaning, but never by just making up words I never said.
bad research
geoff on 2003-11-25T13:35:48
I wonder if what happened was just sloppy note taking, attributing real quotes to the wrong person. after all, with all the posters, tshirts, and badges around she still managed to get the name of the conference wrong - messing up an individual's name isn't too much of a stretch from that bit of quality journalism...
Re:bad research
shiflett on 2003-11-25T15:20:00
Yeah, I guess that could be it. She did have a notepad, although I think she jotted down a total of two words during our brief conversation (which doesn't make me think she was trying very hard to get anything right).
I was much more interested in the Coke than with SCO. :-)
Don't talk to journalists
brian_d_foy on 2003-11-25T13:39:57
During the past two months, I have personally dealt with journalists in print, TV, and radio. Most of the stuff that ends up on the American news is a load of crap. Most of them seem to have the story already written, and they are just looking to fill in quotes. War zones is not the only place that happens though. (Although you might read Ann Garrels'
Naked In Baghdad or Jon Lee Anderson's pieces for the
New Yorker to get a glimpse of how a lot of news organizations covered the war.)
Almost anyone can get a press badge to some places (hell, I got one to TPC), whereas other places require you to be a member of the credentialed press---a real news organization. Various groups (police departments, Congress, et cetera) can list an agency as "credentialed" based on their own criteria. A magazine like
Linux Today would not have a problem at a tech conference, but probably would not be admitted to the presidential press pool.
Furthermore, you could be talking to a "journalist" who is really just a guy with a notepad instead of a trained professional with a sense of ethics (or even a trained professional without that sense---yes, I'm talking to you,
Times). Katharine Graham, former publisher of
The Washington Post, said that ever since Woodward and Bernstein (
Post journalists) broke the Watergate story, reporters want to be Woodward and Bernstein. Scandal has become a lot more popular---indeed, you got steered to the SCO thing really quickly---no chit chat to size you up as a credible source---just a name and a quote?
In any case, if you do not want to be quoted, do not even talk to journalists. Everything you say to them is fair game, including "Could you pass the salt". It will come out that you have a high sodium diet or some such.
When the reporters from the Rhode Island were sniffing around our camp a couple of weeks ago, I did not even answer "What's your name", and everytime they tried to take a photo with me, I covered my face. The reporter never caught on, but the photographer came up to me later and told me he wouldn't take my photo (so I said "Thanks") and it was cool after that. The stories that ended up in the paper were slightly less than fiction---flag-waving puff pieces, really, to highlight area residents serving their country in a dangerous area. They tried to mention as many names as possible to please as many friends and relatives as possible. It is not always about news. Reporters have jobs because publishers have money because people buy their product. Reporters know this, and reportees sometimes forget.
:)
However, if you do want to chat with journalists, tell them that the conversation is "on background" and be very clear that you do not want to be quoted. Do not be blinded by getting your name in print. They are going to mess it up somehow, whether a misquote or misunderstanding of intent or a spelling mistake. Even if you say something wrong and correct yourself, they may take it out of context---it has happened to me. On background, They might take some of the stuff you said and use it, but they cannot attribute it to you and they should get it from another source. Even then be careful, because they might not actually honor it, and which side do you think the editor will take? You will need money and lawyers for drastic recourse, and guess who has more of both?
All of that said, realize that the news cycle is not the development cycle. Each has different goals and desires. Realize that the reason a journalist talks to you, even the good ones, is that they want something from you that they can use, and they need it to fit into a story. They are not going to give back to you like some open source user might send you a patch. If you are really the right person that they want to talk to, they will be able to meet up with you later. Otherwise, you are probably just a target of opportunity and the reporter has no idea why he is talking to you and not someone else, and that is a bad way to start.
Enough cynicism though. Even though someone at an open source conference is not use to being on the defensive (honesty, integrity, and all those other things that we have in the community), remember that journalists come from a different part of the universe.
Re:Don't talk to journalists
shiflett on 2003-11-25T15:34:10
you got steered to the SCO thing really quickly---no chit chat to size you up as a credible source---just a name and a quote?
Yeah, although I did have one of those enormous ApacheCon badges with the speaker ribbon, so she may have assumed I was important enough. Her story seemed to be to get the "buzz" about SCO at ApacheCon and Comdex, but she just didn't find the buzz she was looking for.
In any case, if you do not want to be quoted, do not even talk to journalists.
That's good advice, but I never really thought of being quoted as a bad thing. Like most people, I would like to think that people are interested in my opinion. After this, I'm more inclined to take your advice, though, and avoid them altogether.
Anyway, thanks for the insightful comment.
Re:Don't talk to journalists
inkdroid on 2003-11-25T16:30:07
When the reporters from the Rhode Island were sniffing around our camp a couple of weeks ago, I did not even answer "What's your name", and everytime they tried to take a photo with me, I covered my face.
You just didn't want to tell them how to properly typeset your name :)
No Coke
cwest on 2003-11-25T15:46:15
No worries.
:-)
