Re: [Leica] Squares and sabotage

[Ruralmopics@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/25/99 10:44:38 PM, ewelch@neteze.com writes:

<< Yes, they did, and every paper I've worked for has a policy against 
showing 
subjects stories. And the New York Times, Washington Post, Washing Times 
(left and right, there) and every other paper I know of.

What you're supposed to do is a fact check. Read them the quotes, go over 
major points. But never read them the story.

The point is, by checking the facts you avoid the mistakes you mention, but 
they don't get the idea they have the right to preempt the story the way 
your write it. Of course, that's more for investigative journalism, but 
where do you draw the line? So most papers just avoid the problem with a 
blanket requirement that no stories are shown to subjects.
 >>

For what it's worth, I have NEVER had a subject cross the line and "preempt" 
my story in any meaningful way. Never, not once, not even close. Of course, 
as I've said before, I'm not out to burn people. I tell happy news. Maybe 
that's not substantial journalism but I'm comfortable with it.

Beyond that, I suppose it would seem arrogant and perhaps a bit foolish to 
say I think that Rural Missouri's accuracy check policy is the correct one 
and the New York TImes, et al, are incorrect. But it's true, I do. I've never 
done it, of course, (he says with a tone of self-right indignation) but my 
co-workers have faxed a story to someone and discovered that they were 
spelling the guy's name wrong or that it was really Bill and not Bob. Reading 
someone the quotes probably wouldn't catch those.

I hate to say it but I find the whole journalism as sacred institution above 
common courtesy schtick to be condescending, arrogant and basically just a 
load of crap.  No matter how in-depth we try to be, we are just people who 
swoop into people's lives for a moment or two and then regurgitate our 
initial impressions for all the world to see. In the process we can do as 
much damage as we can good. It seems to me that we owe it to our subjects, 
our fellow human beings, every courtesy possible as we handle their lives and 
reputations. 

I realize there are forms of journalism where "the public good" takes a 
higher precedence over concerns about our subjects. I'll let others do that 
work. I don't have the stomach for it.

Bob (journalists are not by definition antagonists) McEowen