 |
Re: Railroad Newsline for Wednesday, 05/21/08
Author: Ernest H. Robl
Date: 05-21-2008 - 07:49
The basic principle of not letting sources review news stories or articles is sound, as it could lead to far more serious problems with the credibility of the news organization (newspaper, magazine, etc.).
If you show the source or sources your draft, it is far to easy for the source(s) to insist on changes -- when they really did say something they have now changed their mind about. And, if the sources aren't happy with how the reporter has formulated the story, or the conclusions the reporter has come to, they are then likely to try to contact the reporter's superiors -- to either change or supress the story.
HOWEVER, the other side of this coin is that you need a competent journalist who really pays attention to what his or her sources are saying, and gets additional feedback on anything he or she does not understand. In particular, if anything sounds strange, it is the journalist's obligation to say, "Do I understand that you are saying [whatever]?" -- restating what the source has just said in different words. Or, "Does what you just said mean [reporter's understanding of what has been said]?"
There is also nothing wrong with a reporter reading to a source a part of the story that involves him, particularly if it involves a complex issue.
A major problem is that far too few reporters/journalists have experience writing about any types of technical subjects. And, most field reporters, particularly for smaller newspapers and broadcast outlets, tend to be very young. When you're young, you tend to think that you know a lot more than you actually know.
And, when you're young, you tend to see lots of issues far more simplistically than they are in real life. Journalists are also under pressure, both from their editors and their readers to try to simplify complex issues. Very few readers/listeners are willing to pay attention to a long explanation of background that is vital to the understanding of a complex subject.
Also, very few news organizations are willing to give reporters the amount of time that most stories really require. A newspaper reporter may end up writing three or four stories in one day, including all the news-gathering and research related to those stories. Only the biggest newspapers and news organizations are willing to let a reporter or team of reporters spend several days getting to understand a subject before reporting on it. So, there's the time pressure, too.
None of this is meant to be an excuse for bad reporting. I'm sure that I made my share of mistakes when I was a young reporter, but, for the most part, I worked for very competent editors who would question anything that didn't sound right.
Of course, it's nice, having covered transportation subjects for about four decades, when I contact someone new and the new contact has that "Aha" moment where he or she realizes that I really do understand the subject that I am asking about, and that the contact does not have to start at the beginning by explaining all the background.
-- Ernest
If you show the source or sources your draft, it is far to easy for the source(s) to insist on changes -- when they really did say something they have now changed their mind about. And, if the sources aren't happy with how the reporter has formulated the story, or the conclusions the reporter has come to, they are then likely to try to contact the reporter's superiors -- to either change or supress the story.
HOWEVER, the other side of this coin is that you need a competent journalist who really pays attention to what his or her sources are saying, and gets additional feedback on anything he or she does not understand. In particular, if anything sounds strange, it is the journalist's obligation to say, "Do I understand that you are saying [whatever]?" -- restating what the source has just said in different words. Or, "Does what you just said mean [reporter's understanding of what has been said]?"
There is also nothing wrong with a reporter reading to a source a part of the story that involves him, particularly if it involves a complex issue.
A major problem is that far too few reporters/journalists have experience writing about any types of technical subjects. And, most field reporters, particularly for smaller newspapers and broadcast outlets, tend to be very young. When you're young, you tend to think that you know a lot more than you actually know.
And, when you're young, you tend to see lots of issues far more simplistically than they are in real life. Journalists are also under pressure, both from their editors and their readers to try to simplify complex issues. Very few readers/listeners are willing to pay attention to a long explanation of background that is vital to the understanding of a complex subject.
Also, very few news organizations are willing to give reporters the amount of time that most stories really require. A newspaper reporter may end up writing three or four stories in one day, including all the news-gathering and research related to those stories. Only the biggest newspapers and news organizations are willing to let a reporter or team of reporters spend several days getting to understand a subject before reporting on it. So, there's the time pressure, too.
None of this is meant to be an excuse for bad reporting. I'm sure that I made my share of mistakes when I was a young reporter, but, for the most part, I worked for very competent editors who would question anything that didn't sound right.
Of course, it's nice, having covered transportation subjects for about four decades, when I contact someone new and the new contact has that "Aha" moment where he or she realizes that I really do understand the subject that I am asking about, and that the contact does not have to start at the beginning by explaining all the background.
-- Ernest
