Destroying notes

Malicious intent must only proved when it comes to a public figure.

 

I should have clarified the malice part. Sorry.

 

Our company lawyer told us to destroy all notes, as well be consistant about it. Whether you throw them out two weeks after publication, or every six months, just be consistant.

 

Before I had a digital recorder I recorded over any audio files almost immediately and I usually toss my notes as well.

It's just out of habit so I don't get too cluttered, but when I was in news I was told I should get rid of my notes after the story runs.

If you're ever called into court, you can say you have no notes and all the info was in the story. Unless you've totally screwed up a story, you're in the clear.

 

My broadcast professors taught me to keep all audio and video clips. Professor was dragged into court over a story she did but she brought in the tape as evidence and she was cleared.

Now another story I know is of an anchor who was taken to court for libel against two Middle Eastern people a few years back. Anchor reported that those two people were taken into custody by police because of suspicious activity near a Nova Scotian ferry service when 9-11 happened (it was the weekend right after). Anchor's news broadcast was brought in as evidence and he did lose the case.
The broadcast station ended up having to pay punitive damages and lawyer fees for both men.

When I do an interview, I do record but also take down notes. Now, the only notes I take are actual quotes the person said. I leave the rest on audio. I had a situation with an athlete's mother pissed off that we did not report the full extent of health issues that the athlete went through. I was the reporter on this story. Athlete had transplant, but did not disclose what. Also, she did not disclose that she had two other health conditions throughtout the school year. School did not even tell us this. Mother tells us this and also that athlete had to wear wig.

So to defend myself, not only did I show the notes written, which were her daughter's quotes, but played the interview in it's entirety. I wrestled whether this was ethically right to do this, but after consultation with lawyers and a couple of people with many years in the business, I played it for mother. Mother still in denial, and this pissed me off because her daugther did not give us much of anything for the story anyway, and the story ended up being positive (no negativity)

Find out later from friends of mine who send their children to the exact same school, that athlete's mother is a bunch of shit anyway. She has a tendency to cause undeserved and unprovoked conflicts at the school and always lays blame with other parties and not herself or daughter.

Lesson I learned from this, I keep all email responses and audio/visual clips. However, paper notes I do discard because everything is already on audio. However, I have been taught and advised to keep anything if in the event I am taken to court or an issue comes up such as the one above.

 

Yes, many publications encourage their reporters to get rid of their notes immediately so you're not sitting on the stand as an attorney picks apart your notebook under cross-examination. From what I understand, you can be the best note-taker in the world and any attorney worth his salt can still make you look stupid. Thankfully I've never been in that situation, but from what I understand it's ugly.

 

Does that apply to libel in every state? Here in most Canadian provinces, proving malice is not required in a libel case.

I usually keep anything controversial for a couple weeks anyway. Most of my notes are piled somewhere in the basement, out of sight, out of mind, and certainly not searchable with ease.

 

When I was in school, this was practically journalism 101, handed down from more than one salty old professor. Dispose of all notes after publication. They can't subpoena what you don't have.

 

Not sure about Canada, but in U.S., public figures - athletes (probably not high schoolers?), administrators, celebs, etc. - have to prove malice as one of the biggies for a libel case to have merit. Proving malice by a professional journalist is difficult, and destroying your notes makes it that much harder for them to build a case.

 

Of course if politicians did this with their notes and papers, who would be screaming to high heaven: the media.

 

I used to work at one of the New York Times Company's regional newspapers, and every other year the NYT would send its legal team to all the company's papers to conduct what they called ``libel seminars.'' They would go over cases that were won and lost and why, how to protect yourself and the paper from lawsuits, etc. But the point they hammered home hardest was to get rid of all notes as soon as the story is published in order to avoid being subpoenaed in a civil or criminal case and to shield against libel suits. I record over all tapes as soon as I've used the material and get rid of notebooks as quickly as I fill them up. The only notes I keep are ones I'm pretty sure I'll use in future stories. It's just like others have said -- once you've published, you can tell the court all the pertinent information is in the story. Sorry, that's all we have.

 

Of course, if the legal system protected reporters in the midst of legitimate enterprise, then we might believe in that a little more.