03 junho 2003

VITAMEDIAS
Sources of Accuracy [via PontoMedia]
Let's end the old taboo against showing stories to sources before publication.
There is no written version of this prohibition on any newsroom bulletin board that I know of. But it remains an important part of American newspaper culture. I know this because I have been violating the taboo for 18 years and know how uncomfortable it makes other journalists to hear about it. [...]
The more I have done this, the more I've realized that the unwritten rule against checking stories this way is an unfortunate byproduct of that sense of entitlement that animated the stories I heard during my intern summer. We journalists feel that the First Amendment makes us arbiters of fact and that outsiders have no legitimate role after we've finished interviewing them. [...]
There is much confusion about the rules governing the issue. When I switched assignments six years ago, one of my new bosses told me that it was against Post policy to show stories to sources but that he would overlook my bad habit in consideration of my advancing years.
Actually, The Post does not prohibit this method, although it doesn't encourage it either. If you ask them, most editors, like mine, say it is okay, although a Wall Street Journal editor told me it is a no-no in his newsroom. I don't want to require that all reporters do this. That might mean that an otherwise conscientious reporter could be sued if she did not have the time or opportunity to get back to her sources before deadline. But I would like editors at least to announce to all reporters that they may do it, and see if that might help serve our disenchanted readers better than we have been doing lately.
[Nada como uma crise nos media para se colocar tudo em questão! Esta é interessante. No entanto, se é para dissipar dúvidas, não é preciso mostrar o texto todo aos entrevistados, basta telefonar e confirmar os dados - ou não?...]