3 ms·

I also wish journalists would interview experts as you're describing, but I think this "why in the world would you not want to" sentiment is easily explained by

by avar 8y ago

I also wish journalists would interview experts as you're describing, but I think this "why in the world would you not want to" sentiment is easily explained by looking at the incentives of journalists v.s. what you're trying to do as a responsible source, they don't align. Journalists in general have a much larger incentive to cut down two accurate paragraphs to one less accurate (or even misleading one), after all they're competing in a market where people's eyes will glaze over a tweet because it's too long. Furthermore, even supposedly responsible publications and papers of record have an incentive for sensationalism. Your level-headed summary of an event may not align with their editorial prerogatives.

colechristensen 8y ago
Maybe the solution is to interview journalists like employees, journalists that can show examples of work that quoted sources accurately and completely combined with checking that source as a reference to see how they felt about the result should land you and the journalist in a good place. Align your interests. Good papers want good journalists that produce accurate content and can get sources, so do you.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > Good papers want good journalists that produce accurate content and can get sources, so do you. For some definitions of good. I'm not convinced your definition of good and news organisations definition of good align well. News organisations want to publish articles that will drive ad spend and subscriptions. You want to read articles that are factually accurate and quote original sources in full verbatim.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    To expand a bit, if both sides did their due diligence 'bad' reporters wouldn't get sources. That is if sources vetted reporters then maintaining that reputation would be the only thing that got them high quality sources and then news sources that prioritized accuracy would have competitive advantage. We have this already, in a less good light, reporters/news orgs building "good" relationships with people or companies and biasing their coverage in favor of the covered to maintain that good relationship. It sours the view of the news source when you start to see frequent hit pieces or undue praise of a subject that is a clear mark of a paper with an agenda.
barrkel 8y ago
It's not even editorial prerogatives; it's narrative. Newspaper stories - they're called stories for a reason. Stories need structure and internal consistency. Ambiguity and incomplete information are upsetting to the reader. Sure, the more emotive a story is, the better chance it has of spreading, but it doesn't need to be sensationalist - it just needs to engage the reader on multiple levels. There are different kinds of emotions you can hit in the reader that don't rely on sensational reporting. Appealing to a sense of tribal belonging is a particularly strong one these days.

by avar 8y ago

colechristensen 8y ago

Maybe the solution is to interview journalists like employees, journalists that can show examples of work that quoted sources accurately and completely combined with checking that source as a reference to see how they felt about the result should land you and the journalist in a good place. Align your interests. Good papers want good journalists that produce accurate content and can get sources, so do you.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> Good papers want good journalists that produce accurate content and can get sources, so do you. For some definitions of good. I'm not convinced your definition of good and news organisations definition of good align well. News organisations want to publish articles that will drive ad spend and subscriptions. You want to read articles that are factually accurate and quote original sources in full verbatim.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  To expand a bit, if both sides did their due diligence 'bad' reporters wouldn't get sources. That is if sources vetted reporters then maintaining that reputation would be the only thing that got them high quality sources and then news sources that prioritized accuracy would have competitive advantage. We have this already, in a less good light, reporters/news orgs building "good" relationships with people or companies and biasing their coverage in favor of the covered to maintain that good relationship. It sours the view of the news source when you start to see frequent hit pieces or undue praise of a subject that is a clear mark of a paper with an agenda.

barrkel 8y ago

It's not even editorial prerogatives; it's narrative. Newspaper stories - they're called stories for a reason. Stories need structure and internal consistency. Ambiguity and incomplete information are upsetting to the reader. Sure, the more emotive a story is, the better chance it has of spreading, but it doesn't need to be sensationalist - it just needs to engage the reader on multiple levels. There are different kinds of emotions you can hit in the reader that don't rely on sensational reporting. Appealing to a sense of tribal belonging is a particularly strong one these days.