Three Amulets to Protect Yourself from the Media
This time, I would like to propose the following three amulets to protect yourself from the media.
🛡️ Assault Interview Amulet
🛡️ Fighters Amulet
🛡️ Beheading Amulet
🛡️ Assault Interview Amulet
A scene you don't see much anymore
When someone at the center of a scandal leaves their office or home and is walking along, a reporter shoves a microphone in their face and asks,
Reporter: "What are your thoughts on [so-and-so]?"
If they don't answer, Subject A: "..."
This goes beyond the common 'excessive ambush interview' to become an 'assault interview.' This is just my personal impression, but it seems to be concentrated on people who are socially prone to being bashed.
It seems to be done to people who are in the social spotlight, or to politicians when negative topics arise.
The subjects are usually sullen and try to avoid it. And by displaying '...', it gives the impression that they are hiding something bad.
Clear invasion of privacy
It's normally impossible to be expected to say something important when a microphone is suddenly shoved in your face while you're on the move. Even if you are well-prepared, it takes mental effort for an average person to answer, and it seems difficult for anyone but the most experienced to say anything when clearly caught off guard.
The result is mostly '...', but due to the way the footage is edited, it gives the impression that they are doing something wrong and are staying silent to hide it.
Nevertheless, you have to start by interviewing
However, why does this happen? It is possible that the subject is refusing to be interviewed. If they could get solid information, there would have been an exchange there.
The media side also cannot leave topics of social interest alone, so there is a possibility that they end up resorting to these extreme assault interviews and privacy-invading reporting.
What can be done to make this situation satisfactory for both sides?
Column: 'The TV station's response to this'
It was probably over 20 years ago. The wife of a certain athlete (after their divorce) was surrounded by reporters while walking her dog in the morning and had many microphones shoved in her face.
As a child, I thought, 'Isn't this clearly a nuisance?' and I called them. The response was this:
'If they are talking, doesn't that mean they have something they want to say?'
I was very surprised. If this theory holds, then if you hit someone, could you say, 'The fact that you were standing there means you wanted to be hit,' or 'The fact that you didn't run away or call the police means you thought it was okay to be hit'? I felt indignant at whether this theory could hold.
I think times have changed by now, though.
Assault Interview Amulet
I would like to propose one method here for protecting yourself from these surprise ambush interviews.
Write the following content on an A4-sized sheet of paper and hold it up so it is visible.
I will accept interviews at △ on [Month] [Day] from 14:00.
This is a tacit understanding that in exchange for promising to be interviewed on a specified date, you decline surprise doorstep interviews. Once this is held up, the press must, in principle, decline to interview you.
If they still want to broadcast footage of your private life, they would have to show the person holding this paper. The viewers would then see the content. You leave it to them to judge.
Viewer: "They said they would hold a press conference tomorrow, so is the media forcing an interview that the person doesn't want?"
You leave it to them to make that judgment.
What if the person breaks the promise?
If the response (press conference) does not take place on the specified date, the situation is reset for the first time. From that point on, you cannot refuse ambush interviews. The viewers are watching this, too. They said they would hold a press conference on this day, but they didn't. In that case, they would likely think it's unavoidable that they are being ambushed.
What if they specify a date that is too far away?
The guideline would be within two or three days. If the press is not satisfied with that, they may go ahead and roll the cameras for a doorstep interview. However, since the person has provided a date, the press would still need a reason for why they are not satisfied with that.
You would need to ask the viewers to judge again whether the press had a reason to ignore the date that the person clearly specified. Proceeding without a reason will be criticized.
🛡️ Fighter's Amulet
🛡️ Decapitation Amulet
Based on actual examples, I have written about this in the following article.