Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]IMHO, I could not have made the case FOR showing story subjects a copy of a story any better than this writer did arguing against it. The full message is quoted below but I'll quote what for me is the nut: "But NEVER - NEVER - NEVER - should one send a subject or source a story for "review" . . . Will mistakes be made? Of course. . . . But the potential damage to a subject caused by an unintentional error is FAR outweighed by the potential damage that can be done to the First Amendment by faxing stories to sources or subjects before the story run. THAT damage can ultimately have a devesating impact on the lives and freedom of 250 million Americans, not simply harm a single person. >> I'm sorry, I try to be civil on this board but what ARROGANCE!? We journalist - -- and I do count myself among them -- are so full or ourselves! We forget that 99 percent of what we write about rarely rises above our paper's ultimate fate: wrapping fish and lining the bottom of bird cages. We simply don't do that many "save the world" kinds of stories. So much of what we do involves ordinary people who, because of us, are experiencing their sole "15 minutes of fame." Don't we owe it to them to get it right? Where we are significant is as the recorder of history. Fifty years from now people will look up what we read and expect it to be right. Accuracy checks ensure this. But the ultimate justification for accuracy checks is that we do not, as this fella implies, give up any power. We simply consider what the subject has to say. We listen to his objections. We don't have to change anything. But we can. Often, the subject is right and we are wrong. We change those errors and in the process, the world, the first amendment and those 250 million Americans are served by it. This is an out-dated, ill-conceived "rule" in journalism. It harms subjects and it harms us and our reputation. It's little wonder that journalists rate along with lawyers and used car salesmen in polls. One last comment: This fella says he worked for the Washington Post and that at that paper reading a subject a story could be a firing offense. Maybe it's just embelleshment but in both the book and the movie "All the President's Men" Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein are depicted as calling the target of one of their stories (I believe it was John Mitchell) and reading him their story for his reaction and comment. If when the state of the union is at stake it's OK to accuracy check, why isn't it OK when dealing with some ordinary Joe feature story guy? Geez! Bob (First, be a mensch) McEowen P.S. I apologize to the group for this sidetrack discussion into journalism "ethics." I have nothing more to say on the matter. In a message dated 11/26/99 10:59:24 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << At the two papers at which I worked for 23 years- The Washington Post and Newsday, the above would have, had an editor wished to make an issue of it, been a firing offense: You never offer to show the subject of a story a copy of your story; you never offer to show a government official of any kind a copy of a story before it has run; you never offer to show ANYONE your notes or photo out-takes. To do otherwise invites attempts at censorship and lawsuits attempting to block publication. Yes, as Eric has noted, one may on rare occasion and for a specific reason, read a quote back to someone being quoted - to insure accuracy in a science or medical story, for instance. But NEVER - NEVER - NEVER - should one send a subject or source a story for "review." Will mistakes be made? Of course. Will someone regret having said something they are quoted as saying? Of course. A newspaper is, to coin a phrase, a "first rough draft of history." It is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. Mistakes made today can, and should, be corrected tomorrow. Will a story subject occasionally be hurt by such a policy? Yes. But the potential damage to a subject caused by an unintentional error is FAR outweighed by the potential damage that can be done to the First Amendment by faxing stories to sources or subjects before the story run. THAT damage can ultimately have a devesating impact on the lives and freedom of 250 million Americans, not simply harm a single person. >>