Any reporter who uses the phrase “Some say…” in an interview should be drawn and quartered *. “Some say you are a Nazi pedophile. How do you respond?” Either you are saying it or just name those that are. Stop being a weasel and just ask real questions.
P.S. I don’t give a fuck what the man in the street has to say. Just interview people who may have some actual insight.
“it is my understanding that…I just gave myself permission to say whatever I want to say.”
Just like “some argue” in a Wikipedia page. Nothing but weasel words.
Some say this is a very weak pit thread.
Jon Stewart had a great bit on Fox News doing this shit. Some Fox pundit or guest pundit slams Obama or the Democrats over something that no one really cares about. And then Fox News runs stories about the criticism that “some people” are making – the “some people” being the other Fox employees.
Speaking of Jon Stewart, the first “Daily Show” bit I really remember was Steve Carrell jumping on McCain’s campaign bus (not in 2008 … probably in 2000) and getting an interview, and doing a “some say” type question about McCain fighting corruption, but actually being the most corrupt member of congress. McCain handled it well with a WTF look, which prompted Carrell to admit he’d just made the whole question up. McCain became a good friend of TDS after that, until 2008 anyway.
That’s how I’d handle the question in an interview: look skeptical or indignant and ask, “Who? Who says that?” It puts the questioner on the defensive, rather than you.
What I think of whenever any reporter starts with “Some say”:
You can’t trust McCain. Some say that he fathered an illegitimate black child. It was in a poll, so it must be true.
Whereupon the reporter asks: “coughcough* a sphincter says what?”
Some say that there may yet be brothers of man, who even now, fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens…
(Cue brass)
Some call me … Tim …
Despite being beaten to the obligatory Stig reference by dropzone, I will say there are rules Journalists have to follow, and generally one of them involves not compromising your sources.
When a journalist says “Some say you once kicked a puppy and gave the finger to a basket of kittens…” they often have very good reasons for not saying “Fred Bloggs of 44 Oil Drum Lane says you hate puppies”
Let’s say a journalist is talking to prominent local businessman John Smith, who has been accused of being a Communist by at least one person.
For a start, the “somebody” may not have actually accused Mr Smith of being a Communist. They may have strongly implied it (“Did you know Mr Smith has a copy of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book on his coffee table, and another one on his desk at work?”) and there could be defamation issues involved from identifying the source, especially if the source denies ever having said anything like that.
Secondly, there may be a lot of somebodies saying the thing in question, in which case the interviewee almost certainly knows at least some of them and who the reporter is referring to when he says “Mr Smith, some say…”
Thirdly, the reporter may be having to ask apparently “dumb” or “obvious” questions to get an “on the record” response to something everyone (or the reporter) knows anyway, but can’t put in themselves. For example, Mr Smith might be well known as a founding member of the Society for Promoting Democracy And Kittens, and the accusations of being a Communist are clearly lies put about by by a business rival with an agenda to slander Mr Smith’s name.
But the journalist isn’t allowed to just say this, so he has to ask Mr Smith if he’s a Communist, which Mr Smith will emphatically deny, meaning the Journalist can then, in good conscience, put something in his story like “Society for Promoting Democracy and Kittens founding member John Smith emphatically denied being a Communist.”
What journalists aren’t allowed to do, however, is simply make up accusations. If the journalist suspects something (based on their research/investigation into the story) but doesn’t have anyone else backing it up on record, I would suggest that “Mr Smith, it would appear…” might be a better way to approach the question.
And now, back to people alternately arguing with or mocking the OP.
… get caught making up accusations that are verifiably false and/or affect one of the relatively few people or organisations powerful enough to overcome the mass media’s lock on popular perception of reality.
All of what you say could be true in any given case but equally may not be and could be just a cover for making shit up and spreading scurrilous rumours.
I thought of this thread when I read the following line in today’s sports section about the Blue Jackets’ underachieving goaltender:
“Many say that Mason is a decent teammate, but he can be petulant and moody.”
Are “many” better than “some”? 