tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post4646509300245806891..comments2023-10-28T08:45:03.721+01:00Comments on Former home of Headlines and Deadlines : This is not a blog post... this is a confessionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02856693084384304955noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-44829931204685468312010-04-12T10:09:24.076+01:002010-04-12T10:09:24.076+01:00Hi Anonymous, copy approval is different to what I...Hi Anonymous, copy approval is different to what I'd like to see - I'm talking about partnerships between journalist and subject, possibly on an open platform, rather than the traditional emailing out of a pre-published article to the subject. <br /><br />If you're collaborating with someone on an article, it wouldn't matter whether they an elected official or not - you'd work with them on the article, not interview them then go away and write it up separately and only let them see it once it's published. That's my point - not that everyone gets the red pen out wholesale. <br />Objectivity is an interesting point; I suspect collaboration would lead to greater objectivity - that's certainly been my experience in crowd-sourced articles where the outcome is shaped by the participants rather than a journalist following a linear route from A (intro) to B (last par - usually a comment from the target of the article). <br />Reporters having the time to triple-check facts? And you think <i>I'm</i> idealistic?<br /><br />Kevin, case-by-case is the way to go, I agree. And I think news features would be more suited to it. I'd love to see a collaborative article by, for example, a reporter and a group of residents from Norris Green on the crime issues there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856693084384304955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-83733953063560206792010-04-02T20:16:38.204+01:002010-04-02T20:16:38.204+01:00My instant reaction to this is 'no way'. ...My instant reaction to this is 'no way'. The journalist/reporter needs to be an independent observer with no-one influencing the copy. Right or wrong, the copy stands if the reporter has backed up their facts or kept shorthand notes of any conversations.<br /><br />But that could just be my old journalistic pride talking.<br /><br />I remember back in the day dealing with some very sensitive stories in which it would have been easier to hand over the copy. But like you mentioned, my default position was always 'It's against company policy'. There were a few occasions when I had sleepless nights on the evening of publication of some of the more sensitive stories. Thankfully, I received no complaints ... at least not on any of the stories that mattered (or should that be any people that mattered).<br /><br />Today though, some stories can be compiled collaboratively, while others are written more traditionally - ie one reporter, one pen, one pad and a laptop.<br /><br />So each story needs to be considered case by case. The only decision needs to be does it benefit the story or does it compromise the story?Kevin Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06026813204204673007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-41963451917801139432010-03-24T09:48:34.578+00:002010-03-24T09:48:34.578+00:00I'm sorry but that's a terrible idea. The ...I'm sorry but that's a terrible idea. The problem is if it gets out you are dishing out copy approval then where does it stop. When Johnny Councillor gets involved you presumably won't let him attack your report with red pen but he's not going to be happy if you did for someone else. You can't have a pick and choose as the question erupts who is picking and choosing - and there goes your objectivity. A good reporter shouldn't need to show copy to check facts, they should have triple checked them when getting the story and know they are right. Copy approval should be a no always.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-82917147421579287352010-03-12T16:53:08.515+00:002010-03-12T16:53:08.515+00:00David, the death knocks example is interesting - I...David, the death knocks example is interesting - I could really see that helping to establish trust between the reporter and victim's family/represtentative (especially ahead of, say, an inquest or court case). Tone is a good point - we've all had people demanding to see copy and the hackles go straight up. It's definitely not in the spirit of the partnership you'd hope for! <br /><br />Egrommet - my reporting could have benefited from a fact-checker... I believe newspapers in the States also do random post-publication satisfaction calls; that sets my teeth on edge as it invites people to complain <i>after</i> the fact, instead of working with them before to make sure there aren't complaints. <br /><br />Mike, "little mistakes or omissions" are the kind of things that erode confidence in journalism, thanks for posting the comment - it's good to have such an example from the world outside the journo bubble :) <br /><br />Hey Sion, I imagine the relationships you have to cultivate with business contacts must make being open with your copy/facts essential at times; I guess business and political journalists write the copy most likely to be scrutinised by informed readers, who then go on to networking events and hold forth on any shortcomings. No journalist sets out to get things wrong but in the real world it's inevitable. Anything that lessens that possibility is worth trying I think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856693084384304955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-52284690136067919802010-03-12T11:55:56.664+00:002010-03-12T11:55:56.664+00:00I love posts like this. It is so lively; it is all...I love posts like this. It is so lively; it is all about the real life and its situations. Very exciting!Monikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15692668770580501878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-58231958639640068072010-03-12T08:44:58.638+00:002010-03-12T08:44:58.638+00:00I agree. Have found it helpful in the business fie...I agree. Have found it helpful in the business field say on financial figures.<br /><br />With some interviews sometimes you can be given wrong figures, or of course interpret them incorrectly. So checking them over after completion of a story is just good due diligence. The most painful thing is having copy with incorrect information.Sion Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180292874873353495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-51316282208440731822010-03-11T16:43:03.889+00:002010-03-11T16:43:03.889+00:00The (relatively few) times I've provided stori...The (relatively few) times I've provided stories to journalists there have been little mistakes or omissions that, had they shown me the copy prior to publication, I would have been able to fix. Opening up to input can improve stories for no effort and will make people far more likely to work with the media again.Mike Nolanhttp://blogs.edgehill.ac.uk/webservices/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-70320965125212724382010-03-10T14:15:41.151+00:002010-03-10T14:15:41.151+00:00One area in the States where this happens is with ...One area in the States where this happens is with CAR - the reporter will run the data and get the response and then send it back, effectively saying "this is what you told us, what do you think".<br /><br />Again fact checking in action, and you pose an interesting question - where and when should we fact check. Should there be an automatic right to respond or should we share and get the response in before publication.glynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06100020272617528478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-37732327579226779222010-03-09T23:47:41.931+00:002010-03-09T23:47:41.931+00:00I am a journalist too, and I have worked in print ...I am a journalist too, and I have worked in print for five years. Now I have moved on to broadcasting. But at the local newspaper I worked, it was routine to let the interviewee fact check the story if necessary. But he/she wasn't allowed to change other content than facts. This is alright, I believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-8535866591650442432010-03-09T22:31:08.417+00:002010-03-09T22:31:08.417+00:00I think reporting can be different from getting a ...I think reporting can be different from getting a story. The fact you handed over to 3 sensitive subjects your view of their story for approval or out of courtesy shows many subjects require the whole truth.<br /><br />I quite like blogs, am going off editorial, and hating the tabloid. What sells makes money, what matters people will readAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707228007097229203.post-23045689669307817712010-03-09T21:59:42.786+00:002010-03-09T21:59:42.786+00:00It's a taboo which doesn't really need to ...It's a taboo which doesn't really need to exist. I've shown people my copy before, normally after death knocks but prior to publication, just to make sure I've not got anything wrong. Maybe we need to do away with the default position of 'no way' and move to a 'case by case' decision. Someone who demands pre-approval and the right to set the tone of the article? No way. Someone who asks to see it to make sure it's correct? No harm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com