5 ms·

"Another way to tell a good journalist is to tell them you’d like a chance to review the story, to double check it for factual errors, prior to publishing it. I

"Another way to tell a good journalist is to tell them you’d like a chance to review the story, to double check it for factual errors, prior to publishing it. If they decline, or claim that their news agency has rules against this, then you’re possibly dealing with a journalist who doesn’t care about the facts, and possibly is even trying to blame his/her news agency for it." More or less no newspaper will do this. Reputable newspapers will have fact-checkers who will verify stated facts and direct quotes but giving people sight of the finished article before publication is something that no-one does.

schoen 12y ago
Yes, I think several of the entities with rules against this are the largest mainstream daily newspapers in the United States. The Washington Post and the Associated Press have been reported to have this policy, for example.
johnchristopher 12y ago
I have taken a course in journalism some years ago and I can testify that it's a common practice in Belgium. And I think it's a good thing.
mortenjorck 12y ago
Indeed – Imagine a newspaper has just interviewed a city official suspected of corruption. What but the most obsequious editorial staff would give the official a final look at the story before it goes to press?
jawns 12y ago
I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is, allowing a source to see a story before it's published. And indeed, doing so could get a reporter in very hot water, if not fired. So how do reporters, editors, and media outlets make sure that they get their facts right? By doing some of the things suggested -- confirming statements of fact, asking for clarification, and sometimes repeating back a short quote to make sure they haven't misheard anything. But to allow a source to read the whole thing before publication goes way beyond confirming statements of fact. At the first magazine I worked at, I had the liberty of being able to call up sources as I was working on a piece. I would typically pick out any statements of fact that they had made during our interviews and restate the fact, asking them to confirm each statement. There are typically two kinds of objections, and you don't hear either of them very frequently. One is "that's factually inaccurate." Those are the easiest to clear up. The other is, "I never said that!" That's generally not an objection to a statement of fact; it's an objection to a statement of opinion that the person regrets making, or a lie that they have been caught in. I can remember one time that I had a disputed quote on a cassette recorder; we ran with it. Another time, I had only my handwritten notes, and we decided it wasn't worth the risk. As for this particular blog post, anytime I hear someone accuse a scribe of slandering them or a television/radio reporter of libeling them, I take their accusation with a grain of salt. If you don't know the difference between slander and libel, you probably don't know what constitutes either.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is, allowing a source to see a story before it's published. Perhaps in the past. You can find many stories about, for example, politicians in DC who require exactly that as a condition for access. They even would insist on rewriting quotes. It was a big deal in 2012 when the NY Times and a few others made a policy decision to restrict (but not eliminate IIRC) such deals with sources.[1] Note that these publications were allowing such deals until then -- and if the NY Times and Reuters are doing it, imagine what the standards of your local paper are. Some attribute it to the rise of the Internet. Sources aren't as dependent on the the professional news media to get their stories out. If the NY Times won't agree to the terms, maybe BuzzFeed or Red State or someone else will, or the source can publish on their own website, or on the website of a publication they own.[2] People like to criticize the professional news media, and certainly it has its faults. But we will miss it when it's gone. [1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-policy-the-times-forbids-after-the-fact-quote-approval http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-poli... [2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Dz2wbYoI http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabd...
kafkaesk 12y ago
>More or less no newspaper will do this. Reputable newspapers will have fact-checkers who will verify stated facts and direct quotes but giving people sight of the finished article before publication is something that no-one does. No newspaper in the US. It is standard procedure for german newspapers to ask the interviewed for "authorisation" of the transcript before publishing anything. The german journalists association distanced itself from this practice more than a decade ago, [0] but it's still very common. This comes with all the problems you would imagine, especially a tendency for soft-ball questions. Some journalists tried to draw attention to this issue by publishing a "redacted" version of interviews [1], but at the end of the day, if single journalists or entire newspapers refuse to follow the unwritten rules, they may find themselves out of interview partners very quickly [2][3]. [0]http://www.vap-deutschland.org/beitritt-en.php http://www.vap-deutschland.org/beitritt-en.php [1]http://www.journalist.de/fileadmin/Bilder/Handwerk_und_Beruf/tipps_080701_interviewautorisierung.jpg http://www.journalist.de/fileadmin/Bilder/Handwerk_und_Beruf... [2]http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/autorisierung-von-interviews-das-will-ich-so-in-keinem-fall-gedruckt-sehen-1665162.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/autorisierung-v... [3]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/16/us-campaigns-quote-approval-germany http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/16/us-campaigns-qu...
maaaats 12y ago
Maybe in your country. In Norway it's normal. The (few) times I've been interviewed I've gotten the full story by mail before publishing or a phone call. I work for a student newspaper now, and last week we even implemented a feature to automate the sending of unpublished articles to our sources.
nailer 12y ago
When I wrote professionally, sources I had recorded on microtape (obviously with their permission) saying something would often complain that they didn't say what was recorded.

schoen 12y ago

Yes, I think several of the entities with rules against this are the largest mainstream daily newspapers in the United States. The Washington Post and the Associated Press have been reported to have this policy, for example.

johnchristopher 12y ago

I have taken a course in journalism some years ago and I can testify that it's a common practice in Belgium. And I think it's a good thing.

mortenjorck 12y ago

Indeed – Imagine a newspaper has just interviewed a city official suspected of corruption. What but the most obsequious editorial staff would give the official a final look at the story before it goes to press?

jawns 12y ago

I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is, allowing a source to see a story before it's published. And indeed, doing so could get a reporter in very hot water, if not fired. So how do reporters, editors, and media outlets make sure that they get their facts right? By doing some of the things suggested -- confirming statements of fact, asking for clarification, and sometimes repeating back a short quote to make sure they haven't misheard anything. But to allow a source to read the whole thing before publication goes way beyond confirming statements of fact. At the first magazine I worked at, I had the liberty of being able to call up sources as I was working on a piece. I would typically pick out any statements of fact that they had made during our interviews and restate the fact, asking them to confirm each statement. There are typically two kinds of objections, and you don't hear either of them very frequently. One is "that's factually inaccurate." Those are the easiest to clear up. The other is, "I never said that!" That's generally not an objection to a statement of fact; it's an objection to a statement of opinion that the person regrets making, or a lie that they have been caught in. I can remember one time that I had a disputed quote on a cassette recorder; we ran with it. Another time, I had only my handwritten notes, and we decided it wasn't worth the risk. As for this particular blog post, anytime I hear someone accuse a scribe of slandering them or a television/radio reporter of libeling them, I take their accusation with a grain of salt. If you don't know the difference between slander and libel, you probably don't know what constitutes either.

hackuser 12y ago
> I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is, allowing a source to see a story before it's published. Perhaps in the past. You can find many stories about, for example, politicians in DC who require exactly that as a condition for access. They even would insist on rewriting quotes. It was a big deal in 2012 when the NY Times and a few others made a policy decision to restrict (but not eliminate IIRC) such deals with sources.[1] Note that these publications were allowing such deals until then -- and if the NY Times and Reuters are doing it, imagine what the standards of your local paper are. Some attribute it to the rise of the Internet. Sources aren't as dependent on the the professional news media to get their stories out. If the NY Times won't agree to the terms, maybe BuzzFeed or Red State or someone else will, or the source can publish on their own website, or on the website of a publication they own.[2] People like to criticize the professional news media, and certainly it has its faults. But we will miss it when it's gone. [1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-policy-the-times-forbids-after-the-fact-quote-approval http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-poli... [2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Dz2wbYoI http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabd...

kafkaesk 12y ago

>More or less no newspaper will do this. Reputable newspapers will have fact-checkers who will verify stated facts and direct quotes but giving people sight of the finished article before publication is something that no-one does. No newspaper in the US. It is standard procedure for german newspapers to ask the interviewed for "authorisation" of the transcript before publishing anything. The german journalists association distanced itself from this practice more than a decade ago, [0] but it's still very common. This comes with all the problems you would imagine, especially a tendency for soft-ball questions. Some journalists tried to draw attention to this issue by publishing a "redacted" version of interviews [1], but at the end of the day, if single journalists or entire newspapers refuse to follow the unwritten rules, they may find themselves out of interview partners very quickly [2][3]. [0]http://www.vap-deutschland.org/beitritt-en.php http://www.vap-deutschland.org/beitritt-en.php [1]http://www.journalist.de/fileadmin/Bilder/Handwerk_und_Beruf/tipps_080701_interviewautorisierung.jpg http://www.journalist.de/fileadmin/Bilder/Handwerk_und_Beruf... [2]http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/autorisierung-von-interviews-das-will-ich-so-in-keinem-fall-gedruckt-sehen-1665162.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/autorisierung-v... [3]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/16/us-campaigns-quote-approval-germany http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/16/us-campaigns-qu...

maaaats 12y ago

Maybe in your country. In Norway it's normal. The (few) times I've been interviewed I've gotten the full story by mail before publishing or a phone call. I work for a student newspaper now, and last week we even implemented a feature to automate the sending of unpublished articles to our sources.

nailer 12y ago

When I wrote professionally, sources I had recorded on microtape (obviously with their permission) saying something would often complain that they didn't say what was recorded.