I was in the Daily Mail today - centre spread. I did an article on Dancing On Ice where I was interviewed by Lisa Sewards, a lady I have met last year and we spoke on the phone for the interview. I did not ask for sign off on this as I have met the people involved and thought it would be fine.
Unfortunately, whilst some of the content is correct much has been written 'in quotes' that I did not actually say. This is always a a pain as I am careful of what I say and how I say it.
Now Nicky you should know better by now. You may say. Well... Perhaps you are right but the inaccuracies do make me wonder how this works. I say what I say and then it is re-packaged by someone else. But, next time - if there is a next time - sign off will be mandatory. That will help the interviewer and me maintain accuracy...
I will go into detail and re-write the piece for this space later - and let some people know the words were not mine where I feel I need to. Some won't care but some - even though they know this can happen - may doubt my sincerity!
Anyway - for the record - "I sat down to watch Dancing on ice - WITH A GUINNESS... - not red wine.
Moving on -
I did not say "Emma is more exposed as she doesn't have enough ice dance experience." She has no ice dance experience for a start! I did say "Emma was more exposed as she had more time to comment and didn't look comfortable in that..."that's what I saw - and it's a new thing and she can get better. I like her for goodness sake.
I was quoted as saying "Jason has no experience either." Meaning, I think ice dancing, as it follows on from comment re Emma. This of course is correct, but not something I would say. He is a choreographer, not an ice dancer. So bit concerned about that throw away line...
I did not say "The emphasis is on an entertainment rather than having an ice dancing competition and this is the wrong way round." I did say - 'This is an entertainment show with ice and some judging, it is not an ice dance competition." - the 'wrong way round' comment was not mine.
....and here's my trouble with this - I start to read it and get to the point of thinking this is a fictional interpretation of what I factually said and find reading onwards difficult - words are being put into my mouth - literally 'in quotes.'
There's lots for me to set straight here- whether it makes a difference who knows but at least I can feel that what I said exists - as I said it somewhere...
I did think of taping the whole thing and next time I'll do the interview on my vado video camera and post it - that way at least I'll have some verbatim backup.
Towards the end of the piece - to be clear "I did not battle with my lawyer..." - this in incorrect.
And I never said - last quote "I hope he meant it..." re Robin... I took the comment as real. He's a mate I believed it. I never said this... nor looked wistful! We were talking on the phone for goodness sake - it's fiction...
Lot's to clear up in the middle of the piece but - after driving back from Manchester I shall not do it this evening.
What has happened is that the general meaning of what I said in some instances has been repackaged and then put in quotes as if I said it verbatim. This is disappointing.
But - nobody died - well apart from my good friend whose funeral I attended today in Manchester and was always a happy man. So I shall take my example from him - let this go for now - and go to sleep happy!
Tomorrow I will write - my version of my interview... :) Slightly fewer people will see it but it will reflect more accurately what I said.