| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Ever worry how a source will handle a story? |
Topic: Ever worry how a source will handle a story?
| Author | Message |
| writesonwater | Posted – 8/3/2007 4:10:25 PM | show profile Okay, journalists -- do you ever get a chill before a story comes out, worrying how a source will take the piece and how they're portrayed? |
| Lizard Breath | Posted – 8/3/2007 4:39:24 PM | show profile I do. But I like to think that this feeling is good, because it means I am still seeing my sources as people. When you lose that you are in trouble. Actually, early in my reporting, I wrote a series of front page stories exposing unfair firing and hiring practices in the public service sector of the local government. The board resisted, but it had to happen, the good ol' boy attitude had to change. A few months after the stories broke and investigations were launched, the president of the board killed himself. I had left the paper by that point, and obviously he had larger issues, but I couldn't help taking the situation to heart. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/3/2007 4:43:43 PM | show profile Not for a long, long time. As a journalist, my duty is to be fair and tell the truth as I see it. It's not to tell the truth as the source sees it. In many instances, a source being upset means I've done my job well. The source is pretty far down the list of places where your obligation lies: accuracy, the needs of the readers; the needs of your editor; your own sense of right and wrong are more important than what a source thinks. --Okay, journalists -- do you ever get a chill before a story comes out, worrying how a source will take the piece and how they're portrayed?-- |
| writesonwater | Posted – 8/3/2007 5:00:03 PM | show profile Thanks. I've been in the game a long time as far as writing about people, but I've taken on a couple challenging stories lately, and they've weighed on me a bit. I think I'm fretting a bit because I've taken on so much work that I don't have as much time to craft pieces. I just told one of my regular editors I need a couple weeks breathing room -- it's as if I have a beat, and coming up with piece after piece (they don't pay the most, but they're consistent) is sucking up the kind of time I need for well-thought out pieces. These are the joys of feast-or-famine for me, as I feel I need to harvest as much work as possible because I never know ... I actually have an interview for a desk job next week, and I'm considering it. Hour for hour, freelancing pays better, and there's no commute, but I think the hours would be more regular. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/3/2007 7:18:56 PM | show profile yeah. I do. Because I like to hear from a source that I've done a good job portraying tho they are , what they do, what the problem is. And I have heard that a piece is fair, and tough, from sources i have challenged and "taken on". Because I try to be fair and balanced, and give all sides to the issue or the personality I am writing about. Even when I am critical, I am careful to be accurate and blaanced, always get the other side, the response, and when a subject HATEs what I have written, --well, I can't help but question my performance and abilities. And I'm glad I do. Too many journalists are arrogant and out of touch with the issues, subjects, topics they cover. Too many journalists forget that some of these people have never dealt with the media and don't have spin doctors getting paid good money to present a positive image and coach subjects on what to say to a reporter. When I am interviewing a 16 year old kid, or a fruit picker, who ahs never been interviewed before, I repeat quotes, explain the ways they COULD be taken, make adjustments if the individual feels they have something to correct or add. I believe it's unfair to apply the same tactics and rules to someone who has no media experience to those who have staffs trained to deal with this crap--like politicians, or actors, or companiy execs with "media departments". The powerful, I don't get too ruffled when they bitch and moan. But Joe Citizen--I care about what that person has to say, and I feel bad if he/she feels that I've misrepresented or haven't presented ALL the facts. It doesn't happen pften, but it happens, and I do feel anxiety about it. Ironically, the poor and disenfranchised aren't the ones who flip out. I had one case where I interviewed a teenager just getting out of prison, and she was worried about how she would come across...I went over the piece with her and kept saying over and over, we can correct anything that's inaccurate but it has to be inaccurate, and she finally said to me: "I'm not going to flip out on you! Just tell me what you've got there and I'll correct anything that isn't true." Totally cool. Another teenager--a cutter --rich brat from Beverly Hills.When I went over the piece with her, a quarter into it she hung up on me and I got a call from her dad's lawyer. Since I had everything on tape, the lawyer backed off--and when the story did come out, the girl actually called and told me how much she loved it. But that was a good four months of massive anxiety over whether or not I'd get sued by someone who lived a block from Monica Lewinsky. Worse, someone who'd drag my name through the mud with my editors. Your worrying shows your compassion, your empathy and your sense of responsibilty. You're NOT out of touch like so many arrogant asshole journalists in this business, who are all about the byline and the clip and the buzz. Good for you. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/3/2007 8:54:08 PM | show profile That raises the question: 1. Are you worried because you're overworked, rushing pieces, and afraid the source is going to call you on mistakes that crept in because of the hesitaness? If you do this long enough, you'll have times when you have to rush stuff through and you just hope it squeaks by without someone complaining about something. That's a completely different situation than worrying someone will complain about your interpretation in a well-crafted, well-researched piece. --Thanks. I've been in the game a long time as far as writing about people, but I've taken on a couple challenging stories lately, and they've weighed on me a bit. I think I'm fretting a bit because I've taken on so much work that I don't have as much time to craft pieces. I just told one of my regular editors I need a couple weeks breathing room -- it's as if I have a beat, and coming up with piece after piece (they don't pay the most, but they're consistent) is sucking up the kind of time I need for well-thought out pieces. -- |
| writesonwater | Posted – 8/3/2007 9:00:44 PM | show profile Thanks for these observations. Maybe I feel a bit like a surgeon who's doing too many surgeries on not enough sleep ... I get a lot of "You nailed it" feedback, but still. |
| someone | Posted – 8/4/2007 12:53:14 PM | show profile I have handled a number of controversial stories, and you can avoid that feeling most of the time by making sure that you are honest with your sources about what the story is that you are writing and telling them that you want to make sure you present their side of the story. That way, you will always be giving them an opportunity to clear things up or say what they want to say. If they refuse to comment after you ask them, then it's their problem. |
| paula_vergara | Posted – 8/4/2007 8:36:29 PM | show profile It's usually a control issue - the source gives you information, and doesn't feel like they have much, if any control of what you do with it. You have to carefully establish trust. That takes practice. Granted, it's much harder to do this when you are writing about controversial topics, but the source has to know this in advance. I've had a few sources ask me if they can read the article before it goes to print, and I've had to politely decline, saying that I'm under a very tight deadline and need that time to edit the piece...once it's submitted for publication, I can't make any changes. I made the mistake once of telling a source that I couldn't send them the article, but could send them the quotes that I would be using, just to check for accuracy. Of course, there was one quote that they wanted me to take out, but I said I couldn't, as it was from a different source (3 used altogether). It can be a slippery slope at times, but you can't get caught up in that stuff. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/5/2007 1:07:41 AM | show profile I've been able to tell sources that I can't read material back because i'll get fired--that it's unethicval because sources always want to reword or change their minds, and that it's a policy that will get me fired, period. People usually underastnd that. What I will do is read back facts and explain how quotes MIGHT be taken, and ask if they want to elaborate, or explain. I'm also very good about being honest about what theother side has to say--like, if I interview a homeschooler, I will say, okay, here;s the deal,m there are studies that conclude that home schooled children don't do well on standardized tests, or that they don't socialize well...how would your espond to this criticism from toerhs etc? I am very honest and genuine with my subjects--that's how I get their trust. And I tell them what the "media" would try and get from them, or howthey would be portrayed, and what I want to portray as an alternative. I have gotten unbelievable inforamtion and quotes from people--just byshowing up in my kjeans and a tee shirt and saying, look, I could get all dressed up in my heels and my expensive suit, but I hate that shit, I'm here to work hard. And I sit there in their living room that has no A.c. and sweat like shit and get their story, and spend time with them, and if they say they don't want to comment on something, I say, I get that, but here';s what people will think if you don't, and this is why I think it's important that you say somethingto this accusation, etc etc. gaining trust is just a matter of being yourself. People know when you're bullshitting them. If you're honest about the story and the answers you need to get and why, people will sually respond accordingly. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 8/5/2007 11:54:56 PM | show profile I have decided to "fire" my two lowest-paying clients. One was a tie with a third, but the editor is more of a pain to deal with. This should free up the needed brain cells! I feel lighter already ... |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/6/2007 12:28:03 AM | show profile The really difficult stories are true investigative pieces. I did one about a collapse of a gigantic company because of all kinds of shady practices. In that case, to get information, I sometimes had to lie and pretend to know things I didn't and so forth to draw out sources and get information. It's a really difficult quagmire when you get into those type of stories. It's nice to say, "Be honest with everyone," but in reality with some stories if you're honest with everyone you'll never get the story. --I've been able to tell sources that I can't read material back because i'll get fired--that it's unethicval because sources always want to reword or change their minds, and that it's a policy that will get me fired, period. People usually underastnd that. What I will do is read back facts and explain how quotes MIGHT be taken, and ask if they want to elaborate, or explain. I'm also very good about being honest about what theother side has to say--like, if I interview a homeschooler, I will say, okay, here;s the deal,m there are studies that conclude that home schooled children don't do well on standardized tests, or that they don't socialize well...how would your espond to this criticism from toerhs etc? I am very honest and genuine with my subjects--that's how I get their trust. And I tell them what the "media" would try and get from them, or howthey would be portrayed, and what I want to portray as an alternative. I have gotten unbelievable inforamtion and quotes from people--just byshowing up in my kjeans and a tee shirt and saying, look, I could get all dressed up in my heels and my expensive suit, but I hate that shit, I'm here to work hard. And I sit there in their living room that has no A.c. and sweat like shit and get their story, and spend time with them, and if they say they don't want to comment on something, I say, I get that, but here';s what people will think if you don't, and this is why I think it's important that you say somethingto this accusation, etc etc. gaining trust is just a matter of being yourself. People know when you're bullshitting them. If you're honest about the story and the answers you need to get and why, people will sually respond accordingly.== |
| writesonwater | Posted – 8/6/2007 1:00:09 AM | show profile There is indeed a fine line between empathizing with your subject and being a decent person while being a reporter -- the other side of the coin can be that when you get to the point of coachiing, you may have crossed the lines of objectivity. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/6/2007 12:34:48 PM | show profile when the story is about to go to print and you have an accusation or a charge against a source or that involves your source, it is your duty as an ethical journalist to present that inforamtion and allow your source to respond or at least decline to respond. That's "being honest with everyone", I guess, but it's part of your job. Obviously while investigating a story you are not going to giive the lay of the land--but that's also unethical (to write a story in your head or plot a story before you've done the reporting). But once the facts are on paper and are headed to print, you are obligated to contact the challenegd parties for a response--and check the accuracy of the charges and facts, of course. That will require some coming clean. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/6/2007 1:52:52 PM | show profile No question, you should call all the parties involved, though you might not necessarily include their response in the piece. --when the story is about to go to print and you have an accusation or a charge against a source or that involves your source, it is your duty as an ethical journalist to present that inforamtion and allow your source to respond or at least decline to respond. That's "being honest with everyone", I guess, but it's part of your job. Obviously while investigating a story you are not going to giive the lay of the land--but that's also unethical (to write a story in your head or plot a story before you've done the reporting). But once the facts are on paper and are headed to print, you are obligated to contact the challenegd parties for a response--and check the accuracy of the charges and facts, of course. That will require some coming clean.-- |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/6/2007 6:57:12 PM | show profile if it's a response to a charge and you don't include it you could wind up in court. on a libel charge. That's why journalists who don't intend to print a response say, "calls were not returned by presstime". All responses to direct charges and accusations need to be printed. If not in the first peice than a fallow up. That's fair. And an editor worth his salt will insist on it. |
