No, it's a real issue, not an assumed one. On 4/12/2011 11:40 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote:
So far as I have been able to conclude from the 15-20 emails in this thread, there was no qualification that the ENTIRE story be read. However, considering that I've had seven newspapers allow me to see it, I find it hard to believe that this is a real issue and more of an assumed one
The post that got me started on this thread is: 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. ...
When someone says "clear the piece," they usually mean they are seeking to review and approve the entire piece. That is not fact-checking.
Dave -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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
