I've been doing interviews for years, and in all that time, I've virtually never read one and gone, 'Yep, factually and tonally that's exactly what happened.' Pretty much never.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
For years, I've been interviewed, and they write what they thought I thought or what they thought I said. Sometimes it's accurate, and often it isn't.
Doing interviews can sometimes mess up my head. It makes me feel dirty. It's frustrating how the press recycles a quote to death.
It's an odd experience reading interviews with yourself. Interesting, though. Of course, you know that the journalist will have edited, rephrased or even rewritten what you actually said, but you can't help feeling that there's a special kind of truth in the way someone else paints you, however subjective they might be.
I never liked the idea of giving interviews. One says many things, but when they are published, they become shortened, condensed. The ideas lose their meaning.
Every reporter inhales skepticism. You interview people, and they lie. You face public figures, diligently making notes or taping what is said, and they perform their interviews to fit a calculated script. The truth, alas, is always elusive.
I've realized why I don't tell the truth in interviews. It's because they're printed months later, and you change so quickly - you have new thoughts, new everything - so people are reading an old version of you.
The reporter claimed he was going to write the article from my point of view. Instead, he made me sound like a little idiot. It made me never want to do another interview again.
Journalists have misquoted people for so long - and quoted them out of context that for many people like to have their words on record.
If people want to really know what's up with me then they can read one of my interviews.
I'm so reluctant to do newspaper interviews because it's so misleading how they interpret what you say.
No opposing quotes found.