A sad tale emerged yesterday about a woman called Juliet Shaw and her experience of being interviewed as a case study for a feature in the Daily Mail. The resulting story mashed up and changed the facts to the extent that it bore no resemblance to the interview Juliet thought she was giving, with ongoing negative consequences. Many of the comments on her blog post reveal similar experiences.
Recently at MediaWomenUK we have been discussing whether or not it's a good thing for journalists to show case studies what you've written about them before it's published. As an interviewee, I've had the full gamut of experiences, from the interview supposedly in first person quotes from me which bore very little resemblance to anything I'd said, to the journalists who send the whole piece for approval, or the subs (usually on monthly mags) who ring up to check that you actually did say what you're being quoted as saying.
The spoken word and the written word are different, and a certain amount of 'cleaning up' is to be expected when one is becoming the other. But since when did it become OK to insert untrue details and put words into people's mouths? A long time ago, unfortunately. But not everywhere, and not every journalist, by a long way.
The name of the journalist involved in the Daily Mail story is now circulating on at least two forums. The feature itself has been removed from the Mail's archive, but nothing ever goes away 100% once it's online, so the feature is still findable, if you care to look. I have no doubt that the journalist involved will be publicly outed before this story is over. The sensible thing would be for her to get in there first and tell her version of events. But since she is still working for the Mail, with a byline on another case study-led feature just ten days ago, she may prefer to keep quiet, or have been told to do so.
Commenters on Roy Greenslade's blog at The Guardian are calling for the journalist to be named and shamed. But really, what would that serve? All that does is make it about a person, when this story is about a much wider issue.
Should case studies be shown what's written about them before it's published? Should interviewees start taping any interview they give? Is anything true in the Daily Mail? What do you think?
pic: Flickr fontplaydotcom







Recent Comments