Some people will do anything to get a story

[Gizmo]

A friend works at one of the recent stores to go into Administration.

They were working at the store after the possibility of them stopping trading was announced in the press - which of course these days causes a huge run in gift card redemptions. Apparently the journalists were standing outside their store knowing full well that the store management had told them not to accept vouchers and yet telling customers that they were still accepting them!

So of course the customers would then cause a scene in store (and potentially give the journalists a story to play with).

[MoonCat]

Wow. That is totally unethical. Anybody doing that shouldn't even be called a journalist. The term you want there is "hack".

[Sapphire Silk]

Wow. That is totally unethical. Anybody doing that shouldn't even be called a journalist. The term you want there is "hack".

I'm not feeling sorry for Corporate on this one. They're basically refusing to honor an IOU. That's what gift cards essentially are. You buy a promise to redeem money that you then gift to another person.

I do feel sorry for the workers who have to deal with this. But again, Corporate is the culprit, not the journalist.

[Jay 2K Winger]

I'm not feeling sorry for Corporate on this one. They're basically refusing to honor an IOU. That's what gift cards essentially are. You buy a promise to redeem money that you then gift to another person.

I do feel sorry for the workers who have to deal with this. But again, Corporate is the culprit, not the journalist.

I'm not condoning what Corporate decided-- that's wrong.

But the fact is that the journalists are lying (saying the Store will honor the gift cards, when the Store is not) and thus stirring up trouble, all for the sake of having something to report.

[Pixilated]

Even "hack" is too polite for idiots like this. If it's a fact that corporate is reneging on gift cards, then that does become part of the story -- but that does not include so-called reporters behaving in such a way as to get customers even more riled up than they're already going to be. One can only hope that somebody belted one of these twits with his or her own camera when it became known what they were doing.

Signed, a former journalist.

[SongsOfDragons]

This is becoming commonplace with the High Street Death Bingo that we've been having for the last four-odd years. All the administrators of these dying shops tell them to stop accepting gift cards because they're money-losers - their reason, not mine. Every single time the newspapers start bitching about it. You'd have thought we'd be used to this rigmarole by now, it's happened enough times - and iirc the admins of...Comet I think? No, one of the ones that lived...started accepting them again.

I'd rather have the shop survive and the staff now be thrown out in the cold. Especially this recent one.

[Gizmo]

I don't mind people complaining about gift cards now being worthless unless the administrators deign to distribute anything but I do mind the calculated use of lying to turn the customers into SC's on the staff (who had no notice and didn't make the decision themselves btw).

[Sapphire Silk]

I'm not condoning what Corporate decided-- that's wrong.

But the fact is that the journalists are lying (saying the Store will honor the gift cards, when the Store is not) and thus stirring up trouble, all for the sake of having something to report.

Sorry, that wasn't what I took away from the OP; I thought Corporate was telling the public they still accepted gift cards but were then telling workers to refuse them.

That's happened before, so that's how I interpreted the OP. If, of course, the journalists are telling the public gift cards are being accepted when they are not, that's another matter altogether and I completely agree.

[ADeMartino]

This is why I don't pay attention to the local news anymore. I don't listen to the radio or read the newspaper very often, but I absolutely REFUSE to watch the local TV news for this very reason.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

There's reporting the news, and there's creating the news.

The first is...well, a journalist's job. The second is...unethical. Kinda like those firefighters who start fires so they can rush in and put them out and rescue people.

[EvilEmpryss]

After a recent encounter with a local reporter who flat out LIED about how she was going to present a story she was interviewing me for, I have lost all respect for the rumor-mongering, ambulance-chasing, rabble-rousing pseudo-profession.

It's even worse when I check the news stories online and find even the major news organizations can't consistently police their writers for proper use of spelling and grammar. If I can't trust you to write correctly, I can't trust you to report correctly, either.

[PepperElf]

After a recent encounter with a local reporter who flat out LIED about how she was going to present a story she was interviewing me for, I have lost all respect for the rumor-mongering, ambulance-chasing, rabble-rousing pseudo-profession.

It's even worse when I check the news stories online and find even the major news organizations can't consistently police their writers for proper use of spelling and grammar. If I can't trust you to write correctly, I can't trust you to report correctly, either.

This doesn't surprise me. It's like "Citizen Kane" - sparking controversy (or in the case of CK, a war) in order to make money.

On one of my other message boards two members have had recent interviews with the media that ... could have turned into train wrecks. The only reason they didn't was because both men went into the interview prepared, and knew ahead of time that the reporters WERE going to try to make them look bad.

In the case of the first man, it was a quick interview, but ... the man knew the reporter/agency was out to make him look like a nutcase. So he presented himself professionally - appropriate outfit, clear concise answers etc... and refused to let them rattle him. In the end, the reporter was the one who appeared unprepared.

In the case of the second man, it was a longer interview, but the he knew his topic better than the reporter did. He was quick to correct the reporter on inaccuracies, and call him out when he got irrational. So... in the end the reporter's own bias - and lack of knowledge on the subject - was nicely showcased while the interviewee looked like the one who was professional and knowledgable.



In this day and age, the reporter isn't always your friend. The best thing to do is be professional... and if you feel they're trying to "lead" you to something you don't want to say - remember, you don't have to reply to them. And in some cases, calling someone out on it can be just as effective.

[Jay 2K Winger]

In this day and age, the reporter isn't always your friend. The best thing to do is be professional... and if you feel they're trying to "lead" you to something you don't want to say - remember, you don't have to reply to them. And in some cases, calling someone out on it can be just as effective.

This. Heck, if the interview's being taped and not aired live, I'd almost recommend recording it for your own purposes, like with an audio recorder, in case the reporters try to edit your responses negatively.


I'm reminded of a chapter in Mick Foley's second autobiography ("Foley is Good"), when he did an interview with some show about pro wrestling and how it was influencing kids to doing dangerous "hardcore" backyard wrestling. WWE was present while he was being interviewed-- even had their own cameras filming the interview-- and Foley was asked to comment on two clips of backyard wrestling. The first one was some basic roughhousing, just kids rolling around on the ground and playing, to which he said it "looked like fun." The second one was of the "hardcore" stuff, where kids were smashing light tubes on each other and using cheese graters on one another, to which he was appalled and said as much.

When the interview was aired by the show, they played his response to the harmless play ("looks like fun") to the "hardcore" clip, to try to make pro wrestlers look bad.

[PepperElf]

Yeah, I forgot to mention ... the "first man" - I think his interview was live.

in the second... i'm not really sure if it was live or not. it was of a nature that was hard to edit for soundbites though, which went in favor of the interviewee.

[greek_jester]

I'd have been tempted to call the cops on the "journalists"; is "attempting to incite a riot" still an offense?