Gotcha journalism is a term used to describe methods of interviewing which are designed to entrap interviewees into making statements which are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation.[1] The aim is to make film or sound recordings of the interview which can be selectively edited, compiled, and broadcast or published to show the subject in an unfavourable light.[2] The term derives from the word gotcha, a variant of "got you".
Contents |
Methods include misrepresenting the topic of the interview, then switching to an embarrassing subject, leading the interviewee to commit to a certain answer, and confronting them with prepared material designed to contradict or discredit that position, repeatedly baiting the interviewee to befuddle them and get their guard down to elicit an embarrassing response. Another technique is for the interviewer to remain silent after something the subject has said, which often leads the subject to say something to fill the silence. Gotcha journalism is often designed to keep the interviewee on the defensive by, for example, being required to explain some of their own statements taken out of context thus effectively preventing the interviewee from discussing their own agenda for the interview.[2]
The intent of gotcha journalism is always premeditated and used to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified, or immoral.[3] This effect is also achieved by replaying selected quotes from public speeches and following with hand-picked footage or images that appear to reinforce negative images of the interviewee.
Some of the techniques can be used to get a subject with something genuinely discreditable to hide to reveal wrong-doing; there is a fine line between robust and gotcha journalism.
As an example of gotcha journalism, a city's mayor might give a speech in which he claims that during his tenure employment is at a record high in his city. A news outlet may replay that speech and follow up with footage of desperate men and women at the unemployment office, and perhaps even an interview in which the person is asked to comment on the mayor's speech. The interviewee in this case may be baited with questions that have very obvious answers such as, "The mayor says unemployment is a record low; how do you respond to that?"
Gotcha journalism may also be achieved by misleading an interviewee about which portions of his or her statements will be aired, or misleading the audience about how an expert opinion is acquired. For example, a special feature may be run on drug use in schools. To add sensationalism, an "expert" may be given manufactured statistics that imply that a three-fold increase in drug use is occurring in suburban schools, and asked to comment on what it might mean, if real. The expert may issue a statement such as, "If this were actually happening, this trend would be alarming – thank goodness it's not!" To discredit this expert, the whole clip may be aired, in which the reporter narrates, "We asked Dr. John Q. Smith to comment on drug use in schools" followed by the clip of this quote, in which it appears that Dr. Smith is in denial over drugs in school. Alternatively, if Dr. Smith's quote makes the case that the reporter wishes to have made, the narration might state, "We asked Dr. John Q. Smith what he thinks of the increase in drug use and he said," followed by the section of the clip in which Smith says, "this trend would be alarming."
Manipulation of quotes, images, and archive footage is typical in the editing process, especially for news magazines, and does not cross over into gotcha journalism until there is a deliberate attempt to mislead an interviewee, expert, or the audience. Most commonly this manifests by finding footage of exceptions to a generalization given by a speaker or interviewee. For example, in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina public officials stated that progress was being made. A number of news outlets transmitted these statements followed by footage of flooded homes, abandoned neighborhoods, and interviews with the many people still affected by the disaster. The officials may or may not have been lying, but showing some continuing problems does not prove lack of progress in general.
In 1964, the pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254) ended most libel protection recourse for public figures in the United States effectively clearing the way for intrusive or adversarial reportage into the public or private affairs of public figures by news media outlets whether newspapers, TV or radio. Public figures could no longer sue for libel, regardless of the bias of news media, without proof that the media had acted maliciously.[4]
An early citation indicated that "gotcha journalism" was used by Stuart K. Spencer in the Los Angeles Times in 1987.[5] The full story is given in the book Stick It Up Your Punter by Chris Horrie. The headline was also used in a 1994 movie about the newspaper business, The Paper, which was based in part on Horrie's book.
Former Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle reportedly referred to "gotcha journalism" in 1999 during an interview with talk-show host David Letterman.
During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Wall Street Journal columnist Gordon Crovitz suggested that the term "gotcha journalism" was used heavily by Republican campaign managers to diminish the credibility of journalists interviewing about the Iraq war.[6]
6. Schlussel, Debbie. Princess Sarah: Palin Contract Requires All Questions “Pre-Vetted