Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be.
This has nothing to do with "casting aside independence for accuracy," and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: "According to Dr. X, such and such is true" there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, "I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right?" That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business > spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists > have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by > journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. > > You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to > think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, > you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to > expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have > blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- > or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a > lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. > > The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their > independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. > > You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from > me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you > try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will > never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but > that is anathema to most of my colleagues. > > Dave > > On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<[email protected]> wrote: >>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories >>> with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing >>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in >>> silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an >>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is >>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the >>> reporter >>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot >>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the >>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with >>> Dave's point, but it's not my point. >> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad >> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that >> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the >> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a >> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying >> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different >> actions in different circumstances. >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<[email protected]> >>> To:<[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general >>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible? >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > --------------------------------- Hal Caswell Senior Scientist Biology Department Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole MA 02543 508-289-2751 [email protected]
