Media

[Sparky]

Apparently, the media like to edit people's words. In all my experiences with the media and interviewers besides myself (because I publish recordings of interviews rather than transcriptions, so they are more accurate to the aural elements of the conversation), I have learned that the media is notorious for misinformation.

Case in point: Here is what I sent via e-mail to the editor of a local newspaper:

I have comments regarding the article published by APP in their newspaper issue on Sunday, November 27, 2011, under the Music Notes section, entitled "New World, new culture". I strongly disagree with Carlton Wilkinson's article. While studying American Music History with an expert in the field at Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, I participated in class discussions that analyzed a very broad spectrum of musical styles in America whose homogenizations were evident or documented within literary essays, anecdotes, event advertisements such as those in newspapers, and musical manuscripts. American music was in flux and multifaceted, greatly evolving through the publication of music performed by opera troupes and the popularity of instruments such as the fiddle, banjo, fife, and cornet. But primarily, music developed through people of various music cultures sharing and learning music with each other and performing it in new ways. Considering my previous studies and experiences with this subject, it seems that Mr. Wilkinson's article contained biased, slanderous, baseless stereotypes presented without evidence. For those interested in American Music History, I advise the following: take a course on the subject with an expert in the field, read a book such as "An Introduction to America's Music" by Richard Crawford, and then write an essay of academic quality that includes proper citations. Finally, avoid slandering the legacies of America's defenseless early musical legends. Today's Historically Informed Performances can partially credit the melting pot of influences upon early American musicians, given proper research.

...and here is what they published as my letter:

Regarding the Nov. 27 article, “New world, new culture,” I strongly disagree with Carlton Wilkinson. .

While studying American music history with an expert in the field at Peabody Conservatory of Music of Johns Hopkins University, I participated in class discussions that analyzed a very broad spectrum of musical styles in America whose homogenizations were evident or documented within literary essays, anecdotes, even advertisements such as those in newspapers, and musical manuscripts.

American music was in flux and multifaceted, greatly evolving through the publication of music performed by opera troupes and the popularity of instruments such as the fiddle, banjo, fife and cornet. But primarily, music developed through people of various music cultures sharing and learning music with each other and performing it in new ways. It seems that Wilkinson’s article contained biased, slanderous, baseless stereotypes presented without evidence.

For those interested in American music history, I advise the following: Take a course on the subject with an expert in the field or read a book such as “An Introduction to America's Music” by Richard Crawford.

Robert Walliczek

President, Blazing Music Network Inc., Shrewsbury

They asked for 250 words, so I gave them 250 words, yet they still decided to reduce it themselves to 176 words. That's removing almost 100 words from what I actually wrote.

In previous experiences I had with the newspapers, they report that I said something that I actually never recall having said over the telephone interview... so yeah, journalism, I'm takin' you with a grain of salt. In fact, I'm gonna avoid media altogether and if I have something to say, I'm gonna publish it myself, because I don't like it when someone else edits my words for me because they think they are extraneous or irrelevant. At least tell me beforehand that you are going to change what I say before I entrust you to publish my words as I sent them to you. What happened to the last 2 1/3 sentences?

EDIT: Also, I should have said "libeling" instead of "slandering", since his article was written rather than spoken.

[Smythe]

So.... what did they do wrong?

[Sparky]

So.... what did they do?

Does that answer your question?

[Smythe]

So.... what did they do?

Does that answer your question?

No.

From what i can see, they shortened it down from the wall of text that it was, to a accessible, and easier read version of what it was.

What they did to your letter is not bad at all. They shortened it down and got your point across in fewer words. They do this to keep people reading. If they'd published your letter as it is on here, they would have looked at it and thought "Yeah no can't be bothered reading". So in any case the more likely helped you.

But i agree, they should have at least told you what they were doing before they published it, you should email them and tell them that you would have been more pleased with the service they provide, if they had emailed you the revised version of your letter before they published it.

[Sparky]

They separated the sentences into paragraphs, and I see nothing wrong with that.

My complaint stemmed from what I read previously -- there was another publication they put online that was truncated so much and even introduced spelling and grammar mistakes to what I wrote. It was three short sentences that made me look like an idiot because there was no logical continuity. It's most difficult to find anything on their web site, and all I could find was this version which is much closer to what I wrote, as you can see. But I couldn't help but shake my head to myself and chuckle at the original one they posted for me on their web site. I looked at the other articles there and recognized that they had suffered a similar fate.

Anyway, omitting the last two and a third sentences was not right for them to do; what they did was decided for me what was important for me to say. As the author of my own words, I get to decide what I say and when I say it and how I say it. If people misquote me, that only stifles my ability to communicate. With those last two paragraphs, I wanted to summarize the issue and enlighten people that there was more to this topic than debate. There are performers also who do research, and getting things right affects more than public opinion; it affects the interpretation and (most commonplace) performances, since those people often don't scrutinize the facts they hear "professional" musicians professing about music. Just like the government, they rely upon these people to actually do their jobs, not quarrel among themselves.