When does policy go too far?

[RedCanuck]

If anyone was reading Dallas Morning News hockey beat writer Mike Heika's blog over the past few days, you'd hear about how he had confirmation on a breaking story - the Stars firing their coach, Dave Tippett, and replacing him with Mark Crawford - but he couldn't report it because the DMN has a policy their source has to agree to be a source (presumably for attribution?).

Meanwhile, TSN swoops in and runs the story without naming anyone and runs with it while Heika is still scurrying to get that original confirmation that wasn't coming even with the news out of the bag. (Tippett requested the team not announce it until he had time to speak to family apparently).

At what point do you go to your editors and say, "Hey, this just isn't working as we're trailing on a story that should be ours?" then do whatever you can with the sources you have to advance the piece?

 

[SixToe]

Every publication has its standards for sources.

Sometimes it doesn't work out. You just have to work with your system.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

I wondered about this, shocked that Heika didn't have anything for today's paper, because his stuff on the Stars is excellent. I couldn't figure out why he had so little.

Now, it makes sense.

The policy may be a pain in the ass, but I would bet two things: 1) It's probably saved him -- and others -- before, and 2) If I was a potential source, I'd look at this and say, "I can trust that guy. He was dying to report it, but didn't burn anyone." That's such an important thing to have.

 

[SF_Express]

I've said it before and will say again: Blanket policies, with no common sense on a case-by-case basis, are stupid.

I've given this example before: We've gotten stories in the past about a coach leaving for another job from a single, unnamed source: the coach himself.

You don't write that? Makes no sense (of course, if the coach changes his mind, you can even be burned in a situation like that, which has also happened; but you can't be gunshy about everything).

 

[RickStain]

Maybe next time, the Stars deny everything and change their mind, and TSN loses credibility, which is quite a bit to risk for the occasional scoop.

At the very least, I see both sides.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I wondered about this, shocked that Heika didn't have anything for today's paper, because his stuff on the Stars is excellent. I couldn't figure out why he had so little.

Now, it makes sense.

The policy may be a pain in the ass, but I would bet two things: 1) It's probably saved him -- and others -- before, and 2) If I was a potential source, I'd look at this and say, "I can trust that guy. He was dying to report it, but didn't burn anyone." That's such an important thing to have.

The DMN did have the story and a column on it today. Didn't have any sources on the record though.

 

[Some Guy]

I've said it before and will say again: Blanket policies, with no common sense on a case-by-case basis, are stupid.

I've given this example before: We've gotten stories in the past about a coach leaving for another job from a single, unnamed source: the coach himself.

You don't write that? Makes no sense (of course, if the coach changes his mind, you can even be burned in a situation like that, which has also happened; but you can't be gunshy about everything).

Exactly.

I'm all all for treading lightly, confirming and re-confirming. I'm a firm believer that you can't base a story a single unnamed source.

My only exception: If the source is THE source.

A coach tells you something himself, but needs to keep his name out of it for the time being? You can run that and feel good about it.

 

[SockPuppet]

but he couldn't report it because the DMN has a policy their source has to agree to be a source (presumably for attribution?).

I'm confused. The source has to agree to be a source? Does that mean the writer has to divulge to editors the name of the source?

Otherwise, a stupid policy. Heika has been on the Stars' beat forever. I would imagine that his source (if not the coach himself) was a trusted source. If Heika felt that he had the story nailed with the one source, the DMN weasels should have gone with it.

If not for content sharing with FWST, would this story have been a local scoop instead of belonging to a Canadian outlet?

 

[Shifty Squid]

When does policy go too far?

Almost always.

 

[Andy Friedlander]

but he couldn't report it because the DMN has a policy their source has to agree to be a source (presumably for attribution?).

I'm confused. The source has to agree to be a source? Does that mean the writer has to divulge to editors the name of the source?

Yes. DMN policy is that any unnamed source must be approved by someone with the rank of deputy editor or higher before that source's information can be published.

And it's probably not a good idea to call anyone a weasel until you have all the facts. Which I'm guessing you don't.

In general, high standards -- as Mike himself called them in his blog -- are a good thing.

 

[write then drink]

My only exception: If the source is THE source.

if a paper's policy is that the only unnamed sources you can quote are the subject of the story itself ... the identity of the sources won't be unknown for very long!

 

[Some Guy]

My only exception: If the source is THE source.

if a paper's policy is that the only unnamed sources you can quote are the subject of the story itself ... the identity of the sources won't be unknown for very long!

Well, I probably wouldn't, you know, PUBLICIZE the policy. This is pretty much the internal policy at our shop, but it's not like it's spelled out for the readers to see.

Also doesn't come up that much, anyway. Usually, it's simpler just to get multiple other sources.

 

[SF_Express]

My only exception: If the source is THE source.

if a paper's policy is that the only unnamed sources you can quote are the subject of the story itself ... the identity of the sources won't be unknown for very long!

Well, I probably wouldn't, you know, PUBLICIZE the policy. This is pretty much the internal policy at our shop, but it's not like it's spelled out for the readers to see.

Also doesn't come up that much, anyway. Usually, it's simpler just to get multiple other sources.

I understand what WTD is saying, though, which is why my policy is to not HAVE a policy on such things -- you figure out the level of trust you have with each writer and then you make calls when necessary on a case-by-case basis.

 

[write then drink]

Well, I probably wouldn't, you know, PUBLICIZE the policy. This is pretty much the internal policy at our shop, but it's not like it's spelled out for the readers to see.

word gets around. if you set a policy like this, people will find out quickly, trust me. people talk.

my policy is to not HAVE a policy on such things -- you figure out the level of trust you have with each writer and then you make calls when necessary on a case-by-case basis.

yeah, common sense is an amazing thing

and a rare thing

 

[Some Guy]

My only exception: If the source is THE source.

if a paper's policy is that the only unnamed sources you can quote are the subject of the story itself ... the identity of the sources won't be unknown for very long!

Well, I probably wouldn't, you know, PUBLICIZE the policy. This is pretty much the internal policy at our shop, but it's not like it's spelled out for the readers to see.

Also doesn't come up that much, anyway. Usually, it's simpler just to get multiple other sources.

I understand what WTD is saying, though, which is why my policy is to not HAVE a policy on such things -- you figure out the level of trust you have with each writer and then you make calls when necessary on a case-by-case basis.

That would be cool. But I don't have the authority to set policy at my place.

Well, I probably wouldn't, you know, PUBLICIZE the policy. This is pretty much the internal policy at our shop, but it's not like it's spelled out for the readers to see.

word gets around. if you set a policy like this, people will find out quickly, trust me. people talk.

Even in the absence of a company policy, I think as a matter of personal policy, it's probably best to avoid running with stories based solely on a single anonymous source.

I'd imagine most successful reporters follow such a policy on their own, maybe even without thinking about it. In many ways, it's just basic reporting. I doubt many of us are running with every not-for-attribution comment we hear from every lackey on our various beats.

If they are high enough up the chain of command -- a GM talking about a trade, for instance -- you go with it. If they aren't -- if it's the assistant trainer or something -- you try to get someone to corroborate it.

Otherwise, you're going to get burned, sooner or later.

 

[bueller]

Our policy is no unnamed sources. Ever. We can't even mention a report in another paper if that paper used unnamed sources.

This month, every other paper in our state had a story about Glorious State U. either citing unnamed sources or citing the papers that were citing unnamed sources. We weren't able to touch it.

 

[RickStain]

Our policy is no unnamed sources. Ever. We can't even mention a report in another paper if that paper used unnamed sources.

This month, every other paper in our state had a story about Glorious State U. either citing unnamed sources or citing the papers that were citing unnamed sources. We weren't able to touch it.

I want to party with your paper.

 

[Notepad]

How does Steelers head coach Russ Grimm feel about this issue?

 

[Some Guy]

Our policy is no unnamed sources. Ever. We can't even mention a report in another paper if that paper used unnamed sources.

This month, every other paper in our state had a story about Glorious State U. either citing unnamed sources or citing the papers that were citing unnamed sources. We weren't able to touch it.

That's an admirable policy, so long as your paper is comfortable with missing stories.

 

[RickStain]

Our policy is no unnamed sources. Ever. We can't even mention a report in another paper if that paper used unnamed sources.

This month, every other paper in our state had a story about Glorious State U. either citing unnamed sources or citing the papers that were citing unnamed sources. We weren't able to touch it.

That's an admirable policy, so long as your paper is comfortable with missing stories.

Totally worth it.

An unnamed source story is your paper putting it's credibility on the line.

Your credibility should be like your wedding ring: Being really, really sure the hand will hold up isn't a good reason to put it in the pot.