profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Possible Deception?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Hooded Claw

Joined: 05 Dec 2012
Posts: 1
Location: Earth

Post Post subject: Possible Deception? Reply with quote

Hello members of the Media Lens forum.

I have something to ask you on a matter that actually happened, but because the situation is ongoing, I thought it best to hide the names of the people and their companies.

Compared to what else is going on in the world, it may look like a trivial matter, but there may be deception at play here and I would appreciate some feedback.

I'm writing about it here to gage others' opinions about what might be happening in this story.

The players are:

Orange, a concerned person
Company Green, large multimedia company
Blue, producer for company Green
Interviewee Violet
Brown, a minor player
Blue's boss, Red

Orange contacted Blue about a week before transmission of Blue's programme because of their concern that Blue may have been using an interviewee who Orange could prove had been extremely dishonest about the very subject Blue was covering.

Orange believed Violet had been interviewed for Blue's programme based on a statement Violet made on their website:

"Company Green recently interviewed me and several others for a special programme"

After having spoken to Orange at length about their concerns regarding Violet being an unreliable "expert" on the subject, and other matters, Blue wrote this to Orange after the show had been broadcast:

"Violet, along with a number of other people, was spoken to by my colleague during the course of making this programme but not interviewed on camera."

However, this conflicts with many of Blue's comments and questions during Blue's conversation with Orange before transmission:

1. "thank you very much for letting me know, because itís always really useful to know when there are background issues such as this"

2. "You would say that Violet's being deliberately untruthful if they said that"

3. "if for argumentís sake, Violet or someone from their viewpoint were to say something like that"

4. "what do you think Violet's motivation is then?"

5. "Just to be clear, your main concern is that Violet's suggesting itís very difficult to get the information they seekÖ you say that is not true, they know thatís not true, Violet's concealing the evidence that itís not true"

6. "you would say Violet's deliberately doing that."

7. "itís very useful for me to know, as a journalist, because you want to know the background of your contributors, obviously."

8. "in what way would you say Violet's obfuscating?"

9. "You think Violet basically mentions you and talks about your case"

All of these quotes appear to give an impression that Violet was part of the programme at that time.

After transmission, Blue contacted Orange and stated:

"Please understand that our decisions about who we tell what prior to transmission are based on protecting the impartiality of our output."

Yet Blue had no problem telling Orange that someone else wasn't part of their programme during their conversation prior to transmission:

"We havenít interviewed Brown, no. So itís extremely unlikely they'll be in the programme"

It certainly appears that the statements made before and after transmission don't add it and it looks like either:

1. Violet was meant to feature in the programme, as per Violet's own statement, but the evidence offered to company Green by Orange resulted in them being removed, but Blue's statement after transmission is meant to prevent exposure of these facts for some reason;

2. Violet was never part of the programme yet Blue let Orange believe that they were, playing on Orange's concerns and distress in order to extract information from them, information that Orange would not have shared had Blue simply told Orange Violet wouldn't feature, just as Blue told Orange that Brown wasn't in the programme.

Orange asked these questions to Blue's boss, Red who replied thus:

"we spoke to a number of people pre-transmission, including you, in the course of making the film. We do not discuss the details of how we made the film with anyone, but I can tell you that your conversations with our producer and researcher had no bearing whatsoever on whom to include or exclude from the company Green film."

Now, this whole incident feels very puzzling and Red's answer doesn't really clear up much as it might very well suggest that Blue behaved unethically as a journalist in trying to get information out of Orange by playing along with their belief that Violet would feature in the programme.

I would be interested to hear what others think may be going on, or if nothing untoward is actually happening here.

Thanks a lot and I look forward to reading your responses.
Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:22 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly