Hi Malcolm, there are a number of reasons why many publications do
not allow writers to share articles with sources before they are
published. This is not a comprehensive list but here are some of the
considerations:
1) There might not be time to review the article with a source,
particularly in a breaking-news environment.
2) The source might forward the story before it is published, and it
could fall into the wrong hands (a competitor, for example).
3) Some sources take this as an opportunity to "edit" the text,
rather than simply vetting it for accuracy. For example, some
scientists want to clutter the article with credits for everyone
involved in their research. I've even had a scientist ask me to
change his quote so that his boss could get credit for what he said.
4) If the article quotes someone who is critical of the scientist's
work, the scientist might take offense at that—and perhaps even try
to prevent publication of the article.
5) There is a legitimate concern about making scientists
collaborators rather than sources. The role of journalists is to
explain and interpret, not to transcribe.
Good journalists do their best to fact-check articles, and some of us
occasionally read back portions of articles to sources to make sure
we're understanding things correctly (when we are not forbidden by
our employers from doing so). I personally think that can be a
valuable thing to do, although I don't make a routine practice of
it. If I made an error, I would certainly prefer to learn of that
while there was still time to correct it. But in the end, journalists
can't cede control over articles to our sources.
I am very sympathetic toward scientists who have been mistreated by
journalists, and I'm afraid that is all too common. There is no
system of credentialing in journalism, and even our ethical
"standards" are only customs, not rules. However, we do have some
checks and balances in our world. Perhaps the strongest of those is
our own version of peer review: If we get something wrong, our
competitors are happy to point that out! And our editors are not
happy when we make mistakes, whether it's spelling someone's name
wrong or misunderstanding a basic ecological concept. Of course,
editors can be even more harried and science-illiterate than
reporters, but that's another story...
Rather than avoiding all journalists (which defeats your purpose of
educating the public about science), I suggest that you invest a
little time in learning more about why journalists behave the way we
do, and figuring out who's who. You can work with your university's
public information officers to identify journalists who will get the
science right. You can become a trusted source to those journalists,
even for stories that don't involve your own work. I realize that
universities do not always reward scientists for investing time in
"outreach," so I appreciate it very much when scientists make time
for this.
Dawn Stover (freelance science writer and editor, currently working
at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
On Apr 11, 2011, at 12:13 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote:
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.
