Destroying notes

[Billy Pritchard]

I threadjacked the Fainaru-Wada discussion with this, but at least one other member agreed this would make a good discussion in a separate thread. So here goes:

I just learned that some (many? most?) newspapers encourage reporters to destroy all notes and audio files after a certain point beyond publication of a story. I have never heard of that as an official policy anywhere before, and certainly never at the places I've worked. Is this common? If so, does it relate mostly to large circ papers or across the board?

Is it a smart thing to do?
I remember hearing at a workshop once that it was a good idea to do it, but when I returned to tell my SE he said it was ridiculous. He asked what if someone sues you for libel and you have no notes to defend yourself? Is that a reasonable argument against destroying notes?

I'd love to hear what the arguments are for and against. Thanks.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I'd think that you'd want to hang on to any notes/audio clips you might have for anything even remotely controversial for a long, long time. Probably forever.

Notes or clips from a feature on Joe Blow, Thursday's soccer gamer, or the local triathlon advance? Pitch 'em a little while after the article runs.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

The NFL advises destroying all notes.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

I'd think that you'd want to hang on to any notes/audio clips you might have for anything even remotely controversial for a long, long time. Probably forever.

Notes or clips from a feature on Joe Blow, Thursday's soccer gamer, or the local triathlon advance? Pitch 'em a little while after the article runs.

Not if there's a possibility of being supoened.

 

[broadway joe]

I never heard of any publication encouraging reporters to destroy their notes or tapes until now. Seems like a terrible idea on any type of important or sensitive story. Damages your defense against potential libel suits, and doesn't really protect you if the government comes sniffing around, since they can still try to compel you to name your sources even if there are no notes for them to try to get their hands on.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Cousin Jeffery,
Ok, I think I'm missing the point here...

I assumed you would want your notes/audio in a libel situation to save your butt...

are you saying that you should destroy them so that it basically turns into a big "his word against mine" deal?

 

[21]

Newspapers require the destruction of notes because if it's a policy, the writers can't be accused of hiding anything. Sorry, all our writers destroy their notes, thank you for calling.

But common sense probably dictates that if you have something really flammable, ie the guy's handwriting on a napkin, a phone conversation on tape, etc, you lock it up and never say a word about it, unless you really need it to save yourself.

A couple of stories on the subject:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1785

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4105

http://www.spj.org/notekeeping.asp

 

[playthrough]

Looking at the desks in every newsroom I've been in, there has been either no rules on destroying notes or it's the least-enforced policy on Earth, save maybe traveling in the NBA.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

I always thought you wanted to destroy notes that could force you to testify for, or against, anyone. Not that it would preclude you for being involved in a legal case, but you don't want to be in that situation. As for libel, I guess if you interview an NBA star saying he hates gays, foreigners and Jews, and you publish it, yeah, save the tape.

 

[chazp]

I've never heard of a paper encouraging reporters to destroy their notes. I have all my notes dating back to 1998 when I started (most in a spare bedroom at home). I've also know of several other reporters who keep all their notes, some stored away after a certain period of time, though.

 

[wickedwritah]

I always thought you wanted to destroy notes that could force you to testify for, or against, anyone. Not that it would preclude you for being involved in a legal case, but you don't want to be in that situation. As for libel, I guess if you interview an NBA star saying he hates gays, foreigners and Jews, and you publish it, yeah, save the tape.

But as 21 said, if you only hold on to select notes, that will be used against you in court.

I say throw them all away. Maybe, maybe if you have something damning, you put it in a safe deposit box somewhere.

 

[TwoGloves]

I don't keep 'em. Almost got called to testify once in a lawsuit for a guy who had been hurt. I told the lawyer it happened a couple of years earlier, I had no clue where my notes were and everything that was relevant was in the story. Never got called to court.

 

[JayFarrar]

Whoops, on the other thread I said two weeks after publication.
I went back and checked, it is one week after. Excpetions are for current subpoenas or where the lawyers have said that they will file one. The editor can also grant a waiver in special circumstances. File photos are never destroyed.
The idea is that it protects the writer and the paper in case of legal action.
As I said elsewhere, I don't know how many people comply with the policy.
I generally delete audio files to save space and I throw notebooks out when they get full.

 

[IGotQuestions]

Here's why you destroy ALL notes at publication: Because in order for a plaintiff to win a libel suit against you, they MUST prove malicious intent. So let's say you did innocently and accidentally write down a misquote in your notebook, but you never ever had any intent to defame that person. If you're required to give up your notes, you're giving "proof" to the plaintiff, and it becomes that much harder for you to prove your innocence. So by destroying your notes, there's essentially no case. Then it's just he said, she said and a nearly impossible case for the plaintiff to win. Just read TwoGloves' post two above mine - no notes, no case. Libel is a very tough case to prove, that's why notes are considered a treasure chest. Keep the treasure chest from ever being discovered - destroy your notes.

 

[21]

Also, I don't know what your notes look like, but mine look like the work of prehistoric crackheads. Completely unintelligible to anyone but me.

Judge: These are notes? You based your story on this?
Me: See, right here, it says, 'yes, I did it.'
Judge: That says 'Hrtr=op sdss$'
Me: Exactly.

 

[IGotQuestions]

That's the other reason, too. Chicken scratch goes up for debate and further speculation.

 

[John]

Also, I don't know what your notes look like, but mine look like the work of prehistoric crackheads. Completely unintelligible to anyone but me.

Judge: These are notes? You based your story on this?
Me: See, right here, it says, 'yes, I did it.'
Judge: That says 'Hrtr=op sdss$'
Me: Exactly.

That's why my notes are always useless to anyone but me, and sometimes useless even to me -- especially a few days after I wrote them.

 

[ondeadline]

I've never worked for a paper that had a rule about this. But the lawyer for one of my former papers preached the importance of destroying notes in case you are ever slapped with a lawsuit.

 

[IGotQuestions]

and that is why: the plaintiff would have no proof. DESTROY YOUR NOTES.

 

[HandsomeHarley]

I've never had anyone ask me to keep or destroy notes at the three rags I've been at.

That said, I keep everything paper-related until I leave the place. I record over all of my taped interviews.