I heard recently that there may be some legal precedent that by showing sources a story you can open yourself up to lawsuits. I don't recall the details but it was, I believe, based on an actual case.
Do any of the other journalists here know what that is? Regardless, there are other ways to make sure a writer gets the facts straight. They can read back the quotes to the scientist, or call them back to double check facts, etc. And yes, too often stupid mistakes get through in the media BUT there are a heck of a lot of conscientious journalists and science writers out there too. As Dawn suggested, check out the background of the person doing the reporting and see what they've done, if you have any concern. Also I've had bad experience with editors making changes and introducing errors. Editors do NOT always show their edits to the story to the writer after making them, though more and more I request to see the story post-edit, pre-pub. Not all will do it. And my name is on it, so... yea you can bet it's frustrating every but as much as having a mis-quote out there. I am a stickler for making sure the science is absolutely dead on accurate, and not every writer is (or sometimes understands the science) but like I said, I'll say again - there are many outstanding science writers out there too who are every bit as conscientious about making sure the facts and quotes are accurate. Wendee Wendee Holtcamp ~ Writer * Photographer * Bohemian * Scientist Web: [www.wendeeholtcamp.com] Blog: [bohemianadventures.blogspot.com] Twitter: @bohemianone Next Online Magazine Writing Classes start April 23 & Jun 4, 2011 - Ask me! -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:14 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified. In fact, about 10 years ago I was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I was quoted as saying a "frog could grow an extra leg later in life" instead of during metamorphosis. This was a very minor error based on a misunderstanding. Had I seen it before hand I could have indicated the error apriori. Isn't being proactive better than cleaning up a mess later. Of course, none of the fallout from this statement fell on the well-minded journalist, I had to repeatedly explain that it was a misquote! On the other hand, I was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and was not offered the opportunity to read the article or review quotes, but the end product was good and I don't recall any inaccuracies in that article. However, I have been quoted in the Jonesboro Sun, Belleville News Democrat, Arkansas Gazette, Texarkana Gazette, Collinsville Journal, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and Chicago Tribune. In every case they asked me to double check their quotes to make sure they were accurate! I never asked! The explanation in each case from the newspapers that offered this opportunity was to "ensure accuracy." The funny thing is that none of those offering had any substantial errors! Why any journalist would not want to do this is beyond me. I appreciate that DW Lawrence has education and experience in this field, as did the one journalist who concurred with your approach. However, the seven other journalists and editors who requested my double-check of their quotes. By no means am I suggesting this is a 7-2 vote either, these are just the total of my experiences. I don't think this has anything to do with trust and has everything to do with reality. We are all human. A journalist is certainly able to misinterpret what a scientist says, and a scientist is certainly able to miscommunicate what one means. If one or the other happens, critical misreporting can happen. If both errors occur, the entire report can be turned upside down. This approach is just as beneficial for the reporter as the interviewee. Having said that, I do not recall requesting this privilege from any of the reporters. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just relating my experience. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com> wrote: > I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic > colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having > been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's > degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, > hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio > programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having > memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of > Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of > Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how > journalists work. > > The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories > with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most > -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- > usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult > passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of > routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished > story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their > interests. > > Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you > ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be > allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? > > Dave > > On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: >> >> 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<landr...@cox.net> 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"<d...@fuzzo.com> >>>>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >>>>> 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: d...@fuzzo.com >>>>>> 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: d...@fuzzo.com >>> 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 >> hcasw...@whoi.edu > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > 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 > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
