Interesting side note to the Quattrow debacle
In the comments of Ian Wylie's blog entry about Philip Glensiter's Quattrow retraction, someone linked to an interesting article.
Apparently, David Mitchell has accused the Radio Times of "stitching up" its recent interviewees. Wylie confirmed that a new editor with a more "stir things up" approach took over the magazine last summer, which would seem to validate both Mitchell's and Glenister's complaints that their words had been misused.
So, on the face of it, it seems like the Radio Times would indeed shoulder most of the blame for "misconstruing" Glensiter's remarks.
If you read between the lines of Mitchell's article, you realise that he never actually denies saying what the interviewer quotes him as saying...he only complains that it was a throwaway remark that was taken out of context. And as someone on Wylie's blog commented, if a journalist misquoted you so badly that it seriously jeopardised a close working relationship - or, god forbid, destroyed a friendship - your standard response would be either to demand a written retraction, demand the interview tape recordings and/or transcripts, or sue the living bejeezus out of the magazine...none of which Glenister has done.
Now, you could argue that Glensiter is either too busy or too classy to bother with such vulgarities, and you'd probably be right. But given Glenister's history of putting his foot in his mouth in interviews (remember his near Anne Rice-ian bragging that he didn't need no stinkin' dialect coach, before roundly butchering his "generic" American accent in Demons? Oy vey), I do have to wonder if his quotes in the RT were quite as misrepresented as he claims. (He never said he was "misquoted", mind...only that his words were "misconstrued".) Also, the interviewer has stepped up to take the blame for omitting Matt and Ash's names from the article...but has interestingly stood firm on all the rest of it.
Personally - and this is just a hunch - I suspect that what's really going on with the RT lately isn't so much a deliberate campaign of misquoting, but the dissolution of a previous "safety net" editing practice. I'm given to understand that there are certain unspoken "gentleman's agreements" between select media outlets and the celebrities that feed them: namely, that if an interviewee says something controversial, they'll either be asked if they're sure they want it printed, or the remark will automatically be omitted outright. And from the tone of Mitchell's article especially, it sounds like the RT used to be one of those trusted "safety net" media, but isn't any longer.
My personal suspicion: Glenister probably did say something very close to what the article claims, but never expected it would make the final print. Or cause all the fuss that it subsequently did.
tl;dr - I don't think we'll ever know what was really said and what wasn't. And while I definitely agree that Graham should have spoken to Glenister privately instead of spitting black bile at him all over the internet, I completely understand his anger...and I'm not entirely convinced that Glenister is nearly as blameless in all this as he's made himself out to be.
Q
And, of course, I hope they manage to patch things up...for the sake of their friendship if nothing else.
For archiving purposes: my comments on the matter at the time.