I was quoted in an article published today about the bill in the state legislature that purposes to change the way textbooks are selected here in Florida: Volusia textbook controversy prompts legislation.
My quote about conservative school boards reads harsher than I had intended. I was explaining to the reporter how some conservative school boards had formally protested evolution’s prominence in the new state science standards back in 2008. I wanted the reporter to understand the background that led to today’s concerns. Unfortunately, none of that background was mentioned in the story, leaving my quote standing alone without context. That could then lead readers into a false impression of my meaning. I can’t complain about being misquoted because that is what I said, and it’s a true sentiment. But readers might not understand where I’m coming from and just chalk my argument up to partisan politics.
Your quote doesn’t seem excessively harsh, and I suspect the reporter made an honest error.
Many years ago, as spokesperson for a local organization, I did a ten-minute interview with a local tv station regarding a Supreme Court nominee whom we opposed. The report as broadcast featured only the one positive comment I made about him. I no longer quibble with the rule that, when speaking to media, you should always stay “on message” without exception.