Video won’t save the media star

Many know that it is a bad idea to trust or speak to the media if you are not one of them or one of their friends or allies, which you are not if you are any kind of ‘bad-thinker’. Some think that recording the media interview and retaining the rights to distribute what you filmed in whole or part will save you if the media decides to attack or abuse you. It will not.


The whole point of going on some media outlet’s platform is to get distribution of your message/brand/personality/whatever to an audience that is not your own. The reasons for wanting this differ, but that is what you are getting from them.

In the event you are attacked, even without a video record, your own audience, however you reach them, and whatever its size, will be willing to listen to a reasonable explanation of what happened. Those in the media outlet’s audience that are not already a part of your audience will be less likely after the attack piece, than they were before it, to ever become a part of your audience or to give you the benefit of any doubt.


The support, likely small, if any, that you manage to gain from any members of the media’s audience, or the wider world, that seek you out after seeing you attacked, or hearing about the attack, and agree with your reasoning is unlikely to be anywhere near worth the damage done to you across the rest of the media’s audience and those that listen to members of the media’s audience. Damage that can cause serious problems in the life of yourself, your family, and your friends.


Besides, any reasonable people from the media outlet’s audience that seek you out after such an attack to see your response, that come in good faith, will listen to a reasonable explanation and will not, for the most part, if at all, need a full, or even partial, video record to understand or accept your explanation as that is what it is to be both reasonable and to have good faith. Nobody unreasonable or of bad faith that seeks you out is going to be much affected by the video record as that is what it is to be either unreasonable or to have bad faith, or both.


That you have a full record of events will be largely irrelevant when you are under attack as it won’t do much to repair the damage amongst those in some way affected by the attack that are not already a part of your audience as they will not, for the most part, if at all, see it and will not be interested in seeing it or to listening closely to anybody that talks about it (attention, especially fair-minded attention, is hard to get, especially from those already disposed to not liking you after having seen you attacked in the media). Those that are already a part of your audience will not, for the most part, if at all, need a full, or even partial, video record in order to listen to any reasonable explanation you care to offer. Some, possibly many, in your audience will not even need an explanation to take your side in the matter.


It isn’t that it cannot help at all to have a video record, but that it does not overcome the core damage as it is only a record of what happened when what you need is the means to distribute your counter-attack/defence message to the audience that saw the attack in a way that allows things to be repaired (assuming they can be, some people will never be convinced once they’ve come to a conclusion on such matters). Video record is just the wrong tool to overcome the core damage from this type of attack. 


So, as has been said, do not speak to the media and certainly do not think that a video record will be the means of your salvation if you do.

Advertisement
Standard