Make Context Your Responsibility

“I was taken out of context!” is over-used, often false and no longer a good excuse for the way you’re quoted in the news. Even if you were quoted out of context, too many newsmakers have tried to hide behind this tree way too often, making it, at the very least, a weak defense.

If you want to be quoted in context, deliver your messages that way. Make them positive and worthy of standing on their on, self-contained.

Even when you admittedly misspeak, once the words are out there, they’re there forever. In today’s media world, think hard before you open your mouth because your quotes will live in infamy.

In today's media climate you owe it to yourself to carefully measure what you say, knowing there’s always the possibility your words will be analyzed and over-analyzed, interpreted and possibly misinterpreted by bloggers and reporters and readers and consumers. If you don't tell the truth -- or if you twist the truth or "misremember" the truth – there’s a really good chance that it’ll come back to bite you. And, with the Internet, just about everything that’s said and/or reported on will last until the end of time.

Time and again, we see it happen to politicians and the stars of pop culture. While it may be difficult to relate to their worlds and their lives, you can learn from their examples. And we have some to share with you.

In February, 2007, ABC News reported online about White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s remarks to a Republican women’s group about immigration policy:

Rove explained the Bush Administration's guest worker program and immigration policy at a luncheon Thursday by saying, “I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”

The statement appeared on The Corner, National Review's blog, and has been gaining steam ever since.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino told ABC News that the White House does not deny that Rove made the remark but claims it has been taken out of context.”

Rove was not insulting those people in those jobs, the White House explained, he was, according to Perino, saying that every parent wants their child to have a high-skilled, high-wage job.

Too bad, and too late. Even if it’s out of context, the statement stands on its own.

Here’s an out of context claim that stretches the boundaries of believability beyond belief, you should excuse the redundancy. In a contactmusic.com report:

The Oscar-winning actress Marion Cotillard has claimed her controversial comments about the September 11th terrorist attacks were taken out of context.

An old interview with the actress, on France's "Paris Premiere" programme, was published on the internet…apparently showing Cotillard questioning the official account of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US and the 1969 moon landing.

"My statements on that programme have been taken completely out of context and been crafted into a story that has no merit," Cotillard told Access Hollywood yesterday.

"At no point did I intend to contest the horrific attacks of September 11th 2001, one of the most tragic days in all of history.

"Nonetheless, I sincerely regret if my comments offended or hurt anyone", she added.

The 2007 French interview appears to show Cotillard questioning the US' account of the World Trade Centre attacks and potentially claiming they had been planned instead of carrying out required repair work.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," she said in the original interview.

"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? [There] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burned for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

"It [World Trade Centre] was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to re-cable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them," Cotillard added.

If you can find any validity (or truth) in Cotillard’s attempt to explain her original statements, please email Interviewing at eseidel@themediatrainers.com with your interpretation.

Meantime, no doubt Hillary Clinton is ruing the day she talked about her scary arrival in Bosnia twelve years ago as First Lady where she landed under dangerous sniper fire. It was a dramatic speech and painted a dramatic picture. Unfortunately for her, video showed a peaceful event that contradicted her assertion that her group “ran with our heads down” from the plane to avoid the gunfire. The senator called her exaggeration “a minor blip,” that she “misspoke” during her marathon campaign for president.

Back in the entertainment world, “How I Met Your Mother” actor Neil Patrick Harris is still doing damage control from statements he made to an Associated Press writer apparently about Britney Spears’ guest appearance on the sitcom.

He said, “I'm in the minority that our show does not need stunt casting in order to succeed.” His interviewer, an AP entertainment writer, apparently jumped to the assumption – as many readers probably would – that he might be referring to Britney with that statement. So the lead paragraph of the story read, “If Neil Patrick Harris had his way, Britney Spears would be banned from the set of "How I Met Your Mother." Nothing against the pop singer personally — he just doesn't think the show should bring guests aboard for a ratings boost alone.”

The next day, Harris issued a statement of explanation, insisting that, “a writer took some quotes of mine and speculated an opinion about their intent. I write to you to set the record straight. Britney did a great job on the show. She really did. In fact, we are all hoping that she returns rather soon to reprise her role as Abby."

The AP initially stood by its story but, later that same day, issued its own clarification. "Harris did not say that he opposed a return engagement for Spears, and our lead said that he did."

Did Harris get his vindication? Not really. There are still stories online saying he and Spears are feuding. Media outlets that reported the original story didn’t necessarily report the follow-up statement. It’s similar to when a newspaper or magazine prints a correction to a big story with a little one-line sentence buried inside the publication. Just about everyone who saw the original most likely missed, and never learned about, the correction.

In the case of the Spears mess-up, it wasn’t even the actual words that were said. It’s the meaning that was inferred by the reporter. So the lesson here is that it’s all about perception. People whose words might be quoted have to take the time to evaluate how those words might be interpreted, how their comments might be perceived by their target audiences. Everything, after all, has the potential of being a sound bite.

The added rub here is that in today’s electronic media world, quotes last forever.

It comes down to preparation and perception. Know what you’re going to say and what audience you’re trying to reach so you can figure out how you think they’ll perceive your comments.