Malcolm, there is a big difference between checking quotes and allowing
a source to see the full story beforehand. What has been proposed is
allowing scientists to see the WHOLE story, not just the QUOTES from
that source. None of my journalistic colleagues have a problem with
running a QUOTE past a source for accuracy. Sending the full story is
often taken as an opportunity to rewrite the story, and -- as Wendee has
said -- can open the journalist up to a lawsuit if the source doesn't
like what he reads.
Dave
On 4/11/2011 3:13 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.
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
--
------------------------------------------------------
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
