Sometimes the defensiveness arises because of our offensive media atmosphere... the feeling is some of the journalist's quotes/"facts" may be mis-attributed, taken out of context, or straight up lies hoping to get a response that can be quoted out of context.

Even supportive facts/quotes can cause concern. Subject matter experts have a reputation on the line, while the journalist is often just looking for a story.

It's interesting because the act of constantly checking facts and quotes actually helps prevent words from being taken out of context. Good interviews can get away from both parties and solid questioning and verification ensures that the listener applies the correct context to the words.

Why does this strike you as a revelation? Of course they'll get defensive when you challenge their beliefs.

It is quite interesting (and telling of your beliefs) that you took my words to mean that I challenged their beliefs.

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?

I'd guess this happens because a journalist starting to fact check is often a giveaway that they are about to write something you'd want to challenge later.

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.

I suspect you don't have a strong understanding of how journalism works. A journalist fact-checking a story is more often a giveaway they are a conscientious journalist working for a legitimate organization. Getting the story right is a sacred thing for real journalists who know that not doing so opens them up to being called out in the public sphere for spreading untruth. Extensive fact-checking is not only critical to maintaining a reputation, it probably provides some kind of legal cover.

> it probably provides some kind of legal cover.

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?"

If you want to guarantee positive coverage, pay for it. Otherwise, stay away. If you go into an interview with such a defensive attitude, it's likely not going to end well for you.

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.

But then what do you do when some media outlets gave a history of attacking you?

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." ?

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand how working with the media works. You seem stuck on this idea that earned media has to be positive. It doesn't have to be, and it won't always be. If you expect it all to be positive, you will be disappointed and burn many bridges with journalists.

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.

> I'm sorry, but you really don't understand how working with the media works. You seem stuck on this idea that earned media has to be positive.

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).

When you did this? Why wouldn't all journalists always do this?

They should as it's a great tool to both guarantee accuracy, and ensure you're being fair. But, running an interview, getting people off their script, and still constantly checking and validating are all tough. I could see people forgetting it or just not being comfortable. I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.

> I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.

This sounds interesting :) any stories you're able to share on this?