A reporter called, asking if she could interview Loren and me that same day about a topic. We said yes. I rearranged my schedule. Loren rearranged her schedule. Others provided us assistance in making available a third party location appropriate for the interview. After providing the interview, I persuaded another person to also talk to the reporter.
More than a week later, I asked the editor/producer if he knew when the story would air. He said he did not. Later that day, I had a conversation with the other person the reporter interviewed for the story. The other person said she was under the impression the media outlet decided not to move forward with the story. Her understanding was the outlet had decided a conflict of interest presented itself in this situation.
I contacted the same editor/producer again and asked if this information was true. He confirmed his boss killed the story after deciding a conflict of interest might exist. I asked him when he had planned to tell me about this decision. He said “eventually” and was hoping to take me to lunch. He apologized and took blame for the turn of events.
Debates about conflict of interest are typically not black and white. I do not want to spark that conversation about this particular situation. The more important topic is analyzing how the media outlet handled this case.
I often warn clients who rearrange their schedules for media interviews that breaking news can cancel or postpone their appearances. In this case, breaking news was not a factor. Management should have engaged in a deeper discussion beforehand about whether a conflict of interest existed. New facts about the story did not present themselves after the interview. This is just an example of people not properly communicating beforehand. Finalizing that decision after interviewing us implies a lack of respect for our time. Someone also should have informed us of the decision in a more timely fashion. Not doing so implies the media, often depicted as tough, weren’t tough enough to deliver the truth. Unfortunately, I have seen very similar circumstances unfold many times over the years. I remember once setting up a story between a TV station and someone to be interviewed. The TV station never showed up to the interview and never called to say why.
I believe most people in the media would acknowledge the irony of how poorly some of their peers communicate among each other. But I have also witnessed a culture of media entitlement. You sometimes get the impression you should feel blessed if the media call for an interview while understanding the media dictate the terms. This is what I infer in some cases, not all.
The media, no different than any other industry, have its members which promote dysfunction. Getting news coverage can have great rewards. But with those rewards come risks. You risk making much effort to accommodate someone for no reason. And you risk someone in the media mishandling that situation. This does not mean avoid collaborating with the media. This means build strong relationships with journalists you can trust, journalists who will respect your time and see you as a person, not simply another story to fill a space or time slot. Looking back, we should’ve known better.