The Interview Trap

Carl Paladino went on Good Morning America to put his weekend statements into a better light. Instead, he got the journalistic equivalent of a bait-and-switch.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Note: This is not a post about gay marriage, gay rights, or about the brutal and idiotic attacks on three homosexuals in the state of New York.

Nor is this a post defending Paladino, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in the state of New York, whose statements about homosexuality are the hot topic of the day.

I start with a disclaimer, because comments that are off topic will be deleted. This is not going to become a forum debating gay rights, gay marriage, or anything related to the violence, public policy, or idiot prejudices. This is about media coverage.

I do reserve the right to make fun of Paladino for saying “I am not a homophobic.“

The Weekend

For those who don’t know (or are reading this a couple of years after the fact,) here’s the timeline:

1. Paladino appears before a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders, and shares his feelings about how homosexuality is portrayed in our culture.
2. Apparently, there was a line in his prepared remarks, added by a staffer, that Paladino deleted because he didn’t agree with it. (“There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”)
3. Prepared remarks are released with the line intact.
4. Less than a week earlier, eight men were arrested for brutally beating and sodomizing a gay man and two gay teens in The Bronx.

The Setup

Paladino went on both ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today Show. I didn’t see the NBC appearance, but watched the GMA treatment with George Stephanopolous. The actual interview didn’t hit until four minutes after the hour, and after David Muir’s package setting up the facts as I listed above. Except Muir’s story was laden heavily toward the sensational, and didn’t mention anything about the deleted line.

This isn’t even really about Muir’s piece, however.

Coming out of the package, Robin Roberts pitched to Stephanopolous and the interview, which began with a set-up line similar to this: “Mr. Paladino, you just heard what your opponent, Andrew Cuomo had to say…”

Yes, Cuomo was in Muir’s piece.

However, it was quite clear from the clipped audio transition from Robin to George that we were now dealing with a taped interview.

What ABC did was show the Cuomo response to Paladino, then got him to take it from there.

Paladino was not reacting to nor responding to the statements or the characterizations in the Muir package.

The average viewer at home would not have noticed the audio change, nor would have picked up on Stephanopolous’ verbal cue that Paladino was only aware of part of what preceded him. This matters, because a reasonable viewer might come to the conclusion that Paladino didn’t have a problem at all with all of the way Muir portrayed him.

Paladino was given a chance to rebut his opponent — but not a chance to redirect or clarify what the audience saw as the setup to his interview. And when the interview was over, you heard the cold toss from George back to Robin, with the little hum of dead audio indicating that we’re leaving tape and going back to live TV.

Again… this isn’t about gay rights or gay anything else. This is about understanding how the media operates so you can get the fairest shake.

The Second Omission

Leaving viewers with the impression that Paladino was “okay” with the overall tone and facts of the story – and not telling anyone it was taped in advance – was the first sin of omission.

The second omission was so glaring, yet it was my wife who pointed it out to me.

“Hey… is that Andrew Cuomo guy Chris Cuomo’s brother?”

Why yes, he certainly is.

Cuomo is now segmented away from the daily news coverage, as a host for 20/20. But up until last December, he was a regular part of the GMA team, and likely has several close friends still on that editorial team.

Is it right for GMA to do a story impacting the New York Governor’s race without mentioning the personal ties to the brother of the candidate?

The latter might or might not be a huge issue, and I don’t want to assign motives where they can’t be proven. But you’d think in a highly-charged story such as this, you’d want to err on the side of transparency. (Note: if you’re working in a newsroom, and several colleagues are high-fiving each other over an interview, take a five-second time out for an objectivity check.)

And if you are ever in a position to do an interview for one of the morning shows, be diligent in asking about where your taped interview will appear. Context matters.