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one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it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
