I have had enough dealings with the media (plus an undergraduate class in journalism) to know that it is inappropriate for an interviewee to review and approve a story before it is published or aired and to make this a condition of the interview. That's interfering with journalistic freedom. However, that does not mean you cannot offer to review for accuracy the quotes or information the interviewer prepares, as long as you don't intend to approve or change the interviewer's conclusions or interpretations. And don't be surprised if the interviewer turns down this offer (and don't be upset or refuse to be interviewed). It's your duty to provide an expert's information to the public, and it's the interviewer's duty to do this objectively and accurately. Most of the time this works.
Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Sunday, 10 April, 2011 19:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? 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. >> > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist"
