There are a couple of comments that should be made here,

1) There is an assumption that in giving the interview he was supporting the show, we cannot be sure of this at this time.
2) There is no indication that he was not attempting to provide a counter-point to the program's theme and simply had his interview edited to the point where it supported the show's theme

The problem with refusing to respond to requests for interviews is that you allow any message held in the show to be given without any response from any other position. There are actual studies out there that show that a failure to respond to an accusation actually increases the belief that the accusation is true regardless of the accusation.
Some current examples of this in practice are some of the programming on the 24/7 media channels that do nothing but provide primarily one point of view over and over again (or political attack ads...)

Anytime you give a interview, whether it is to a print media journalist or a TV program, you run the risk of having material edited out of context with the message you chose to give. One of the more recent classic examples of this in the media was what happened to Shirley Sherrod.

I worked at a Zoo for more than 18 years and did my share of interviews and had items taken out of context as well. The longer the interview, the greater the risk that this is what is going to occur.

Ed

[ Show Entire Thread ]