Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces
with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons
accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the
same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose
word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get
their approval of a story I wrote involving them first.
Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very
hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by
running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an
advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I
understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists --
how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at
least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our
stories to our sources for approval? We cannot.
I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such
clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my
statement.
There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist
reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed
from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want
to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs
altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with
more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard
to understand the material or make sure they understand the material.
Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve
unrealistic "productivity" targets that may make it difficult to
adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with
a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them
either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own
interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism
list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to
have their name taken off of the byline).
And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries"
where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in.
They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will
find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those
programs are not "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I
wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out requests to be
interviewed for such programs. I don't know enough about how they
approach sources to know what to say.
Dave
On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can
get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they
were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in
presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon
could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers
would clear the piece with the originator of the
information/testimony. ...
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
