There are a lot of journalists and documentarians who are inquiring about this, wanting to write articles and make documentaries.
What are people’s heuristics for how to speak well with journalists and to choose whether and which journalists to talk with? Here are two that I’ve heard:
Small-town journalists tend to be much less politicized than those who write for a national outlet.
It’s good to always be “off the record” when speaking, and then say you’re happy to provide written quotes on-the-record via email afterward. This means you can (a) be deliberate in your wording, and (b) have proof if they misquote you!
I’d be careful about talking to journalists at all, and default to not doing it. People writing about these murders have an incentive to make the Bay Area rationalist community sound bizarre, depraved, or salacious, and I’m sure some of them won’t hesitate. Like the cops, journalists know how to make you feel like they’re your best opportunity to get justice, and some will use that to get you to let down your guard. “Off the record” is not a legally binding agreement, and even if they don’t attribute your quote, they can still twist it to make it sound like someone told them something sinister. It’s tempting to try to set the record straight! But unless you’re skilled in managing the media or have a reason to trust the specific person you’re talking to (and a way to verify their identity), I’d steer clear.
In the corporate / government world, the standard is to have one informed, skilled person whose job it is to interface with media, and everyone else’s job is to direct the media to that person. Is there someone in the community who wants to take that role?
The majority of journalists are in the top 5% most evil people in the whole world. If you care about getting the truth out about something do not talk to journalists at all unless: 1) it’s being recorded by both you and them; and 2) you have the ability to get your recording in front of the public. Most journalists will literally just lie about what you say to them to the public in order to make their story.
I am in a position where journalists often try to ask for comments and my policy is never talk to them. The few times I have made the mistake of giving them a couple comments they have literally lied about what I said to them in their subsequent article.
I guess if the story you’re trying to tell is interesting and aligns with the journalist’s worldview there’s a chance they won’t deliberately misquote you. But if its something important then you shouldn’t run that risk.
Despite my negative experience (gave an interview twice, was deliberately misquoted both times), I think there are some ways to mitigate the risk:
Check the articles the journalist wrote before. Do they include some careful thinking and nuance; do they present arguments both for and against, such as Scott Alexander’s blogs? That it’s probably okay. Do they express the mainstream view, or do they align perfectly with the views of the owner of the news? That means your words will be twisted until they fit the narrative (or twisted to sound idiotic, if that is not possible). Is it something like clickbait about science? Expect your words to be twisted for maximum clickbait.
Is the communication like “you say something, and then it’s up to the journalist how he reports that”? That is the most dangerous way. Sometimes you can make a deal that you need to approve the written version before it gets published. Many journalists will refuse, using a convenient excuse (an internal policy, the need to meet a deadline).
Is the communication like “you talk in front of a camera, then the debate is published online”? Watch the previous videos. Are the interviewees talking for minutes, or are individual sentences cut out of their speeches? The latter seems dangerous. The former… there is still a risk of the journalist trying to put things in your mouth (see “so what you’re saying is” Jordan Peterson meme), but you can see whether they were aggressive this way in their previous interviews, and to a certain degree you can defend yourself if that happens. You could make a deal that you will record and publish your own version of the debate.
I think that most journalists are bad, but there are ways to filter them out.
(I hesitate to write this, but I think that Joe Rogan has some qualities of a good journalist. I disapprove of his choice of interviewees, and that he often just gives a platform to horrible people without even slightly pushing back against them. But he is not guilty of misrepresenting them—which I see as a primary risk of talking to a journalist. He doesn’t do his homework though, he just lets anyone say whatever they want to say, without mentioning any opposing perspective. A good journalist, from my perspective, would be someone who spends a day googling about the topic, figuring out the mainstream consensus and the problematic parts of his interviewee’s opinions, and then he would let them speak, but also ask things like “you said X, but some people say it is wrong because of Y, what is your opinion about that?” and letting the interviewee defend themselves, but also making it clear to the audience that it is complicated.)
In one of those two cases, the entire “quote” was one sentence, completely made up (and crazy).
The other case was a mixed bag, where most statements were quoted correctly (not literally, but in a way that didn’t change their meaning, and I am perfectly okay with that), but there was one specific thing where the journalist clearly wanted me to say something, tried various ways of “but wouldn’t it be possible that...” and “you can’t be 100% sure that it isn’t the case that...”, and after I stubbornly resisted, she just made up a quote that agreed with her, and that I would obviously never have said.
But outside of that one thing, the rest of the interview was okay.
I also know two journalists who make interviews in a style “let’s talk for half an hour in front of a camera, then publish it online with minimum editing”. One of them started doing it on YouTube, later he got employed in a mainstream newspaper. The other already started as a journalist, first doing paper interviews, later also video interviews. (Both of them non-English.) These two I would trust in a video interview, and probably also in a paper interview. But I’ve never interacted with either of them.
I think we tend to agree on the method to safely talk to a journalist. At least, the method that I see you write about is virtually the same as the method I suggested in my comment.
What I want to emphasize though is that for most ordinary people whom journalists will try to talk to, the format will mostly be just talking to the journalist and letting them write an article later. Most journalists will not do the whole long form interview that recorded and video taped with people who aren’t already famous.
So for your average person who doesn’t already know the depths of journalist depravity, it’s much better to just have a blanket “don’t talk to journalists” rule.
There are a lot of journalists and documentarians who are inquiring about this, wanting to write articles and make documentaries.
What are people’s heuristics for how to speak well with journalists and to choose whether and which journalists to talk with? Here are two that I’ve heard:
Small-town journalists tend to be much less politicized than those who write for a national outlet.
It’s good to always be “off the record” when speaking, and then say you’re happy to provide written quotes on-the-record via email afterward. This means you can (a) be deliberate in your wording, and (b) have proof if they misquote you!
I’d be careful about talking to journalists at all, and default to not doing it. People writing about these murders have an incentive to make the Bay Area rationalist community sound bizarre, depraved, or salacious, and I’m sure some of them won’t hesitate. Like the cops, journalists know how to make you feel like they’re your best opportunity to get justice, and some will use that to get you to let down your guard. “Off the record” is not a legally binding agreement, and even if they don’t attribute your quote, they can still twist it to make it sound like someone told them something sinister. It’s tempting to try to set the record straight! But unless you’re skilled in managing the media or have a reason to trust the specific person you’re talking to (and a way to verify their identity), I’d steer clear.
In the corporate / government world, the standard is to have one informed, skilled person whose job it is to interface with media, and everyone else’s job is to direct the media to that person. Is there someone in the community who wants to take that role?
Before talking to a journalist, read articles by the journalist to get an idea about the kind of narrative they are likely to write.
The majority of journalists are in the top 5% most evil people in the whole world. If you care about getting the truth out about something do not talk to journalists at all unless: 1) it’s being recorded by both you and them; and 2) you have the ability to get your recording in front of the public. Most journalists will literally just lie about what you say to them to the public in order to make their story.
I am in a position where journalists often try to ask for comments and my policy is never talk to them. The few times I have made the mistake of giving them a couple comments they have literally lied about what I said to them in their subsequent article.
I guess if the story you’re trying to tell is interesting and aligns with the journalist’s worldview there’s a chance they won’t deliberately misquote you. But if its something important then you shouldn’t run that risk.
Despite my negative experience (gave an interview twice, was deliberately misquoted both times), I think there are some ways to mitigate the risk:
Check the articles the journalist wrote before. Do they include some careful thinking and nuance; do they present arguments both for and against, such as Scott Alexander’s blogs? That it’s probably okay. Do they express the mainstream view, or do they align perfectly with the views of the owner of the news? That means your words will be twisted until they fit the narrative (or twisted to sound idiotic, if that is not possible). Is it something like clickbait about science? Expect your words to be twisted for maximum clickbait.
Is the communication like “you say something, and then it’s up to the journalist how he reports that”? That is the most dangerous way. Sometimes you can make a deal that you need to approve the written version before it gets published. Many journalists will refuse, using a convenient excuse (an internal policy, the need to meet a deadline).
Is the communication like “you talk in front of a camera, then the debate is published online”? Watch the previous videos. Are the interviewees talking for minutes, or are individual sentences cut out of their speeches? The latter seems dangerous. The former… there is still a risk of the journalist trying to put things in your mouth (see “so what you’re saying is” Jordan Peterson meme), but you can see whether they were aggressive this way in their previous interviews, and to a certain degree you can defend yourself if that happens. You could make a deal that you will record and publish your own version of the debate.
I think that most journalists are bad, but there are ways to filter them out.
(I hesitate to write this, but I think that Joe Rogan has some qualities of a good journalist. I disapprove of his choice of interviewees, and that he often just gives a platform to horrible people without even slightly pushing back against them. But he is not guilty of misrepresenting them—which I see as a primary risk of talking to a journalist. He doesn’t do his homework though, he just lets anyone say whatever they want to say, without mentioning any opposing perspective. A good journalist, from my perspective, would be someone who spends a day googling about the topic, figuring out the mainstream consensus and the problematic parts of his interviewee’s opinions, and then he would let them speak, but also ask things like “you said X, but some people say it is wrong because of Y, what is your opinion about that?” and letting the interviewee defend themselves, but also making it clear to the audience that it is complicated.)
Did you ever have a positive experience where the interviewer didn’t misquote you?
In one of those two cases, the entire “quote” was one sentence, completely made up (and crazy).
The other case was a mixed bag, where most statements were quoted correctly (not literally, but in a way that didn’t change their meaning, and I am perfectly okay with that), but there was one specific thing where the journalist clearly wanted me to say something, tried various ways of “but wouldn’t it be possible that...” and “you can’t be 100% sure that it isn’t the case that...”, and after I stubbornly resisted, she just made up a quote that agreed with her, and that I would obviously never have said.
But outside of that one thing, the rest of the interview was okay.
I also know two journalists who make interviews in a style “let’s talk for half an hour in front of a camera, then publish it online with minimum editing”. One of them started doing it on YouTube, later he got employed in a mainstream newspaper. The other already started as a journalist, first doing paper interviews, later also video interviews. (Both of them non-English.) These two I would trust in a video interview, and probably also in a paper interview. But I’ve never interacted with either of them.
I think we tend to agree on the method to safely talk to a journalist. At least, the method that I see you write about is virtually the same as the method I suggested in my comment.
What I want to emphasize though is that for most ordinary people whom journalists will try to talk to, the format will mostly be just talking to the journalist and letting them write an article later. Most journalists will not do the whole long form interview that recorded and video taped with people who aren’t already famous.
So for your average person who doesn’t already know the depths of journalist depravity, it’s much better to just have a blanket “don’t talk to journalists” rule.