Someone suggested that I would be good on news programs doing real-time analyses of whether or not someone is lying. Someone else sent me a message telling me that I grossly misquoted a subject I analyzed.
That’s Not How This Works
While I agree I would be an interesting guest on a news program to talk about deception, performing a real-time commentary would be more for viewer entertainment, not accuracy. With regard to misquoting someone, I use video evidence, transcripts and their own written statements, so it’s not possible to misquote them when using their own words.
I’ve explained my forensic statement analysis process below, showing why, when done accurately, the process works.
Commentary Vs. Analysis
I’ve seen some body language “experts” on television news programs pointing out that the POTUS did this so it means that; or the interviewee in the news clip just did that, so it means this.
Forensic statement analysis differs from body language analysis in that the method I use is not subjective and requires no interpretation. In the TV segments I just mentioned, the body language commentary is entirely open to interpretation i.e. if someone actually leaned in or if it really means what is being opined.
Because working with statements requires a comprehensive analysis, it’s not something that can accurately be done on the fly. It requires a detailed examination of the words, phrases, and context. A thorough analysis takes careful consideration and time.
Many times, when conducting an analysis, it requires playing the video over and over, and over again, to ensure the transcript matches exactly to the words spoken. Something as simple as saying “a car” vs. “the car” is significant.
The process can require playing the video back, frame by frame to ensure accuracy. Again. Rewind. Play it again. Again. One more time.
As a professional deception analyst, I don’t publish my analyses until I have painstakingly reviewed the words multiple times. My integrity and reputation are at stake.
Misquoting? Not Possible
As you can see from the process description above, it’s not possible to misquote someone because I take each word individually and compare it to the video footage of their own words.
The caveat to that would be if I am using quotes from only a third party – such as a news article. I cannot verify the accuracy of those words quoted first hand if I don’t have a video available to match it against. If a reporter writes that he said, “a car” I only have that to evaluate. This is why I’m not a fan of using only third party text to analyze.
Some online videos also provide the written transcript. I know the Today Show does this, as does YouTube on some videos. Those transcripts cannot be relied upon as accurate until verified against the video footage. I’ve seen my share of misquotes from the voice to text program used to create the transcript.
To be 100% accurate, I need to see the video and/or the actual statement written by the person whose statement I am analyzing.
Available For Interviews
Lastly, I am available for media interviews including television, radio, podcasts and written articles. I can either analyze something in advance, or I can talk about the process and give you words and phrases I look for. This ensures the credibility of your reporting and as well as my services.
Please Like, Share and Post a Comment
As Managing Director of Concealed Statements I work with men and women who want to increase their deception awareness to avoid wasting time or money and avoid making poor decisions based on inaccurate information.