---- "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
No. >If not, why should journalists do the > same with scientists? for accuracy. the scientist is not trying to control what you say, but to help you to be accurate. If the "source" says, "My data suggest that if X is done, Y will happen, but G has found differently," and the reporter writes, "If X is done, Y will happen," that is not what the "source" said. You must have misunderstood, and therefore you wrote an inaccurate story. I would think a clear agreement before would prevent misunderstandings as to what the "source" is responsible for or not. If you don't want your facts checked, you should not be writing science journalism. If you are willing to let your sources dictate your story, you should not be in journalism. But fact checking and dictating the story are different things. >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. Trust works both ways. It takes trustworthiness on both sides for two individuals to work together. mcneely
