by "ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
Published 09/07/2017 at 16:10
by "ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
Published 09/07/2017 at 16:10
No Tags
STARS: 0
Some of you questioned whether it was ethical when a reporter read a draft of his story about me over the phone and asked for my input. I was surprised at how strong your reactions are, as I a know very little about how journalists are able to operate. I kind of assume that they are all little Daulerios, who would publish anything to grab eyeballs.
He sent me this today:
Editors keep asking me for a better photo. They are looking for something other than a head and shoulders shot—-maybe one of you speaking or otherwise in action that is of higher quality than they can grab from a video. Do you happen to have one that you would be willing to share? Still aiming for publication on the 12th, as far as I know. Will send you a link then and keep you posted if there’s a change in publication date. If it’s any comfort, after we last spoke, I came to agree with your point that I had not made it clear enough that your aim was reining in CRLA and that the workers were ancillary, so, in addition to fixing the factual problems you noted, I added a quote to make that point explicit.
Apparently, my opinion of his article, he took my editorial input as well as my corrections on the facts. What do you think journalistic Opponauts? Is this the way it should be done? This guy was a reporter for the LA times for over 25 years, so I thought I was dealing with an established professional, and assumed he was doing this according to professional standards.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
09/07/2017 at 16:15, STARS: 2
I guess I don’t see the problem. Its fact checking. Its not like he is obliged to alter his story at all based on your input.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/07/2017 at 16:23, STARS: 2
I’m not a journalist, but this seems like common courtesy to me, especially since you are a focus (or the focus) of the article. I would guess that this should be SOP, but perhaps it isn’t. It tells me that the author is trying to be fair and balanced, something that FOX News clearly isn’t, even though they coined the phrase.
"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
09/07/2017 at 16:27, STARS: 5
It’s not a problem in the least. It’s the easiest way to fact check. I’ve interviewed someone and then asked them to read my draft. If they suggest I change something because it’s wrong, I change it. If they suggest I change it because they simply don’t like what I’ve written I leave it.
A more important question is: What about the journalists who ask a subject to write something about him/herself and then simply run that as the piece, under the byline of the journalist? I’ve never done that as the journalist but I have had it done to me as the subject.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
09/07/2017 at 16:38, STARS: 0
It’s a win for you, IMO, so who cares if he is a pro or not?
"haveacarortwoorthree2" (haveacarortwoorthree2)
09/07/2017 at 16:52, STARS: 1
Seems perfectly fine to me. If he let you write the story or spin it how you’d like instead of reporting facts, that would be an issue.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
09/07/2017 at 17:12, STARS: 0
I am not a J-School grad but am an endless purveyor of journalistic ethics (seriously, I spent my entire lunch break reading about Jayson Blair earlier today). Nothing wrong with what he’s doing IMO. He’s not giving you final copy, which would be more questionable. Think of it this way - how many times do you see at the bottom of articles “the subject was unavailable for further comment, and we will update if responded to”. It’s more of a courtesy than SOP. As long as the reporter is accurately stating the facts and they aren’t letting you substantially bias their work, think most people would agree its OK.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
09/07/2017 at 17:26, STARS: 1
You are not his editor. His editor is his editor. His editor(s) and he, himself, are the only ones who should be making changes to his story.
This is going to be long, so be forewarned....
Now, if he had said something like this before writing his story , “OK, let me see if I’ve understood what you’ve said correctly, Immoral Minority. You’re saying that, in your opinion, Vespas are the best two wheeled vehicles and that Sunchasers are better than Miatas when it comes to cuising down the 101, correct? But I feel like I didn’t really have enough clarity on your position about tortoise shell cats. Could you elaborate on that a little more?”
And if you say, in response, “Yeah, I love my Vespa. It’s the perfect commuter for around town. And the Sunchaser is a great weekender. Now, as for cats, I may be biased because of my tortoise shell, Pumpkin, but I love her more than I’ve liked most tabbies. She’s definitely a character and has made herself an integral part of our family.”
All that is ok. He’s asking you to reiterate thoughts you’ve already spoken about. It gives you an opportunity to put the same thoughts into slightly different words, and it gives him an opportunity to hear the same ideas again, even if a little bit differently, so that he can be sure he understands what your point of view is with as much clarity as he can.
It allows you both to make sure you’re saying what needs to be said and hearing what needs to be heard without impinging on the story, or how the reporter approaches writing the story.
Here’s another example of something that’s (mostly)ok.
He calls you (or you call him) asking to double check quotes. And he says, “Ok. I’m including a quote where you said ‘Vespas are nice scooters.’” And you think that’s incorrect, or it might be incorrect. You can say that. “I said, ‘Vespas are great scooters.’”
But even that is kind of pushing the line a little. Ostensibly, he recorded the conversation. I know I record every in-person or phone interview I conduct with a source, unless we both agree that all or part of the conversation is off the record.
Ostensibly, since California is a two-party state, you gave him permission to make such a recording. Ostensibly, he transcribed that recording faithfully. Ostensibly, you actually did say that Vespas are “nice” scooters, but you really, really like your scooter and now, hearing your quote read back to you, it just doesn’t sound enthusiastic enough, so you’d like to change it to “great.”
I’ve been in that situation before — where a source realizes they didn’t say something with what they felt like was enough emphasis. Or perhaps they’re having second thoughts about saying something with too much gusto. And so they’ll reach out to clarify their quote, or to make an additional quote. If I decide to use the subsequent quote — IF I do — then I make it abundantly clear that the statement came from an entirely different conversation.
For example:
“In speaking of how he spends his leisure time, Immoral Minority, an avid auto enthusiast, said he enjoys driving his Sunchaser and riding a Vespa he has been making modifications to over the past year. ‘Vespas are nice scooters,’ IM said Monday.
During a phone conversation Wednesday, he revisited the topic, saying that Vespas are, in fact, ‘great’ scooters.”
See how that changes things without compromising either your quotes or the reporter’s integrity and honesty?
So now we come to what the reporter emailed you:
I came to agree with your point that I had not made it clear enough that your aim was reining in CRLA and that the workers were ancillary, so, in addition to fixing the factual problems you noted, I added a quote to make that point explicit.
Oof. OOOOOF!!!!
That is very problematic.
This:
in addition to fixing the factual problems you noted
is not an issue. If you told him that last year you won the case of Big Milk vs. Farmer Joe for a $1.35 million settlement and he wrote that it was a $1 million settlement, well, that’s a factual error that needs correcting. That’s fine. Correct away.
But this:
I came to agree with your point that I had not made it clear enough that your aim was reining in CRLA and that the workers were ancillary, so, ... I added a quote to make that point explicit.
THAT
change should have been up to him and his editor(s). That’s why newspapers and magazines employ editors and fact checkers. It’s their job to read the copy and see if it answers the five W’s: who, what, where, when and why (and how, too, of course). If an editor thought some point was a little murky or vague, then it’s up to the editor to say that to the reporter.
But to give you that discretion? That is completely unprofessional.
Maybe the point wasn’t clear. Maybe it was.
Maybe the point was clear enough, but it wasn’t clear enough for your liking. Well, frankly, too bad. You should have found out about it at the same time everyone else gets to: after the story goes through its rounds of editing and after it gets published. Because, other than correcting factual inaccuracies, it sounds like he modified his commentary on the facts to coincide with your opinion, and that’s not OK. He should arrive at his commentary based on his analysis and understanding of all the facts he has gathered, both from you and from other sources.
Again, all that is standard procedure. I edit stuff all the time. I ask my reporters to provide more information or to clarify points when there’s a rare example of murkiness in their writing.
I’ve also had dozens of people ask me and my reporters to see finished stories prior to publication. Nope. Absolutely not. Like I said, it’s totally unprofessional.
Most people who ask are asking innocently. The sports reporter is doing a feature on your son, who is the star quarterback, and you’re just excited to see it when it’s all done. We get it. But, sorry, you’ll have to wait until it comes out in Sunday’s paper. And sure, I’ll set aside a few extra copies for you.
However, not everyone who asks to see a story prior to publication is doing so innocently. There are those few who most definitely know what they’re doing and are hoping they can persuade an inexperienced or unscrupulous reporter into steering the tone of a story in a more favorable direction for them.
But what makes this instance absolutely worse is that this reporter volunteered to and did read you the entire story prior to publication, even going so far as to tell you that it was a “controversial practice.”
My friend, it’s not just controversial, it’s flat out wrong.
Like I said in my comments on your original post, you strike me as a stand-up guy. Nothing I’ve said here is meant or intended to chastise YOU in any way, shape or form. I want to be absolutely clear on that point. You didn’t do anything wrong. But him? He most certainly did.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
09/07/2017 at 17:37, STARS: 1
He’s not giving you final copy, which would be more questionable.
Except he did. He read Immoral Minority the entire finished story last week :
No, he read the whole thing over thr phone. Described his practice as “controversial.”
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
09/07/2017 at 18:07, STARS: 0
Reading someone something over the phone is not remotely similar to final copy. Final copy (in J-school jargon) is when the listener would then say “don’t publish that” and the journalist would say “OK you have final copy.” Or final edit. Reading something and asking for comment isn’t giving someone license to audit and edit out his or her work for publishing.
It’s only a controversy because the journalist wants to be the center of attention, which if you know anything about journalists, is invariably true.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
09/07/2017 at 18:14, STARS: 3
I might know a little something about journalists since I’ve been one for over a decade.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
09/07/2017 at 18:31, STARS: 0
touche
"DipodomysDeserti" (dipodomysdeserti)
09/07/2017 at 19:27, STARS: 1
My brother is a journalist for an actual paper(s). He has also written articles for industry journals. One of them requires someone to be an actual journalist, the other does not. Getting input is one thing, using one source as a source of facts is another. It depends on the full scope of what he was doing.
"Patrick George" (pgeorge)
09/08/2017 at 11:57, STARS: 0
Oppo lurker here, maybe I can help out a bit.
In general, sharing drafts of stories with sources is frowned upon, though many reporters do it anyway. At Jalopnik, it’s a major no-no, something I consider a fire-able offense. Reading an entire story draft over the phone is maybe a little better, but also not ideal. Basically, you have no idea what could happen with the story before it runs if you send it to someone else, especially in writing.
The most I allow is for people to read, over the phone, only relevant parts of the story that that particular source gave them to check facts. This is especially useful on stories with complicated issues. Even then I only encourage it with sources you know and trust very well, not just any random person.
Your guy seems to have been acting in good faith to get his facts right, at least. But it’s still not the best way to do things.
"TomServo (Resides on the Satellite of Love)" (mk7silkblue)
09/08/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 1
My father is a former pro journalist, and rails against this stuff all the time. You don’t share the drafts with the sources they are based on. Maybe it’s a different situation here, but unless he is making sure facts are correct, I’d say it’s a no-no. I’d also love to ask you about the field of law, as I’m thinking of law as a career choice someday.