Allowing sources to see stories before printing

How do you think your editor would feel about it?

Never.

 

Well, obviously it's his call and I respect his rules. And I doubt I'll ever have an editor who agrees with me on this.

 

Why show the story if you plan to disregard the response? If you have the audio file, if you stand by what you heard and what you wrote, why ask for the subject's review and approval?

I have never--NEVER--known any source to completely like and appreciate the way they sound in print. Don't ask for approval if you don't plan to grant it.

 

I had the same question brought up by a source this week. If someone wants to check things over, run an ad. If I make a mistake, I'll run a correction. But I can guarantee that at least 90 percent of the people quoted in a story are going to complain about what's written.

 

I'm not asking for his approval. I'm asking for his review.

If he asks to make changes I don't think improve the story, I won't. But it might cause him to make suggestions or volunteer new information that does improve the story.

Allowing review is not the same as asking for approval.

 

Your job as a reporter is to get enough information from the source yourself to write the story. You shouldn't have to let him read the story to make sure you get all the information you need. That's what interviews are for.

If it's just to 'review' the story, then he can review it the same way everyone else does: Read it for free online in the newspaper.

 

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly naive.

Define 'improve.'

Then discuss the legal ramifications of ignoring his claims that you got something wrong, after you ask him to review the material.

(And just to be clear, I'm not calling you naive...I'm referring to the idea that this is a productive way to produce good reporting.)

 

I think the problem is that giving a source prior access is a way to try to get approval. You aren't writing the story for your source, he or she isn't a customer.

When you are writing your story and wondering what a source will think of every line, you aren't really providing your reader a straight story.

 

I work with a magazine where the stories are mostly positive and in some cases highly technical training pieces. We often show complete stories to sources and allow them to weigh in on changes they'd like to see made.

And it's become the biggest pain in the butt. We had the main source for a story call a secondary source and tell him to change his quotes. We've had main sources try to simply change other sources quotes on their own. We've had major rewrites of perfectly good, acurate stories.

And then they want to see it again after you make the changes.

If you're at a place where people haven't come to expect seeing stories beforehand, then you should avoid it at all costs!

 

Never cede power to sources.
Next question?

 

Negatives far outweigh any benefit.

On the same note, we should probably just write stories on companies that advertise in the paper and only write good things about them. We have to make sure everything is correct, right?

 

Never.

/thread.