Media on Media

Speakers interrupting one another. Several voices yelling at once. Mind reading employed to answer questions.

Each of the above describes inappropriate behavior and techniques. They also describe the methodology favored by many of the all news networks. The print media has joined the bandwagon of including the writer in the story in interviewing. From the casual, where they ate, to the banal, what the interview subject is thinking or feeling inferred by a gesture or by what was not said. Pre-concluding the answer to a question doesn't suggest an open mind on the behalf of the interviewer.

Nor does continually asking the same question because the answer was unexpected. If the interviewee doesn't answer the question on the subject matter other choices are available, including the decision not to run the interview at all. Other questions could be asked and most important of all, do not seek an interview promising not to discuss certain issues and then bring them up. It's sensationalism granted, but it demonstrates the interviewer's utter lack of integrity. An interviewer makes the personal decision to publicly dissociate him or herself from possessing any ethics whatsoever by saying something along the lines of "you agreed to do this interview if we didn't discuss [subject], why won't you discuss this [subject]"

Admitting publicly to a complete lack of integrity through agreeing to the interview under false pretenses and breaking their word in front of the camera doesn't make the journalist appear hard hitting or even necessarily intelligent much less qualified to interview anyone for any reason. An investigative journalist must possess integrity for their sources to believe that their identity will be kept confidential and that the journalist will honor their promise not to reveal anything about the source. Yet some journalists feel it is acceptable to break their word to an interview subject in front of the camera. Any 'source' who chooses to confide in a media personnel who has already publicly demonstrated the inability to keep their word is asking for trouble.

Instead of directly asking about [subject not to be discussed] perhaps "describe the worst decision you made", "what do you regret" and so on and so forth the answer may surprise. In simple words, journalist do your job.

However falling back into repeating the question until the desired answer is achieved, has some, selecting to mute the sound [until the journalist's mouth stops moving] before resuming volume, on the faint hope that the interview subject might actually get a chance to talk, granted the chances of this scenario occurring are infinitesimal.

IATWM is not featured in any of our interviews. IATWM didn't hold the canvas, pose for the painting, purchase the materials or any such thing. The artist being interviewed is the story. They and they alone. If it is something that IATWM doesn't enjoy as a spectator it is not something employed as a participant.

One of the advantages of independence is the ability not to repeat behavior or interview techniques that do not interest IATWM.

Asking for one journalist to specifically comment on a report prepared by another journalist is not news. It's not even interesting. One argument in favor is that canvassing opinions is quick and easy. True. However quick and easy does not automatically translate into good and interesting. If the all news channels have the chance to make the situation worse they appear to seize it by inviting a series of guests to speak. A lack of manners within each guest is a pre-requisite along with non-existent listening skills and an absolute resolution never to answer the actual question posed. The question may be offensive in its delivery and word selection desired to provoke emotion and anger, often successfully, rather than a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information. If each guest possesses an utter lack of moral fiber believing it is acceptable behavior to mercilessly insult each other guest, the host and anyone they can think of as loudly as possible, so much the better.

The ordinary news channels are not without their fault of jumping on the bandwagon of the "hot story", which involves waiting outside a public location a courthouse, for example and daily filming people walking and then saying some commentary, often repetitive, from each day since the story broke. Except in the case of the finals of the Olympic Competition, seeing people walking to and from a start/finish line is not worth watching. Once every four years this ritual is interesting to find out which country got the gold, otherwise its only use is as an insomnia cure.

The question arises, with the multitude of media covering the same topic, ad nausea, where is the creativity and investigative research qualities of the journalists and their editors.

The guests that choose to appear and respond with such behavior that should have been exercised out prior to Kindergarten, begs the question, where is their dignity? Simply because some in the media choose to use their airtime to host these excuses in nasty behavior doesn't mean the guest has to participate.

Good communication is a requirement for publicity of the guest's view point but that is rarely offered. After all, if the all news network truly wished to interview the guest, why is it necessary to slot in barely a few moments for the interview and the answer is often cut off with "we only have a few seconds".

The interviewer often adds to the cacophony of misery with the favored question, "Why did he say that?" The best answer, only because it provokes laughter while changing the channel is, "He thinks [insert guest's demonstration of a Vulcan mind meld here]."

Too many journalists have gotten out of the business of investigating and reporting and into the business of commenting on someone else's work. The media reports the news, now more and more they appear to believe as though they make the news. The only time media makes the news it is rarely positive such as recent examples of being caught airing and publishing incorrect information. Of course the method to cover this actual news worthy subject doesn't change it is more of the loud and annoying behavior. Quite frankly if the media had spent the time to do their job, fact checking prior to publication, they wouldn't have become news.

Mistakes certainly do happen, even here with a publication that covers art and artists. Certainly not a hard hitting genre but it's important to IATWM that when an error is caught it is corrected even to the simple incorrect date attribution. IATWM could take the simple way out and for example put as little credit line with our images as possible. Instead we choose to publish the full image credits often adding in some information such as artist's nationality and lifespan. Our readers find it informative, it's a little harder to do, but worth it. Of course where there is dispute, among critics, that is opinion not fact and IATWM is free to make their own opinions and run with them.

Certainly some may well disagree with IATWM's opinion. There is an audience for what is described above. IATWM is not among that audience.

Media on Media

© 2005 International Art Treasures Web Magazine, All Rights Reserved.