Dear Inklings: Dr. Ink has reviewed his unpublished takes, written just before September 11. Most seem irrelevant now: complaints about media coverage of Little League athletes, Gary Condit coverage, and the news slump of August. But the ever-dutiful doctor found one important question left unanswered. That question and Inky's answer –- originally slated for posting on Sept. 12 –- are below.
Dear Dr. Ink,
I'm a business reporter for an industry newsletter and have noticed a disturbing trend in the past year: more and more company-based sources requesting pre-publication review of articles. I can't afford to alienate sources but distributing articles for pre-pub review is asking for trouble.
It's practically impossible to restrain a source's desire to make changes to an article once it is in their hands, even when accompanied by a set of strict guidelines (such as requesting that comments/changes be based on "accuracy only" and emphasizing that the pre-pub review is a courtesy). I've been in the business for 15 years and these requests have never been more plentiful than today.
What's the best way to respond to this type of request that helps sources understand why it is being denied, but doesn't piss them off?
Thanks,
Deborah R. Dakins
Contributing Editor
Diagnostic Imaging Magazine
Answer: This thoughtful and important question deserves a serious answer, so Dr. Ink will lock up his funny bone for the day. There's a general view in the land that pre-publication review is one of journalism's great taboos, a blow against our vaunted independence. But there are many, many other layers to this onion. A number of approaches will work, but only if the journalist reserves editorial control.
Here are several justifications for offering pre-publication review of a story:
- If the source is a "golden source" without whom the story could not be written, and especially if the source is vulnerable and inexperienced, or a whistleblower.
- If a key source will not come forward or go on the record. Pre-publication review has been known to melt the fears of such reluctant sources.
- If the information in the story is of tremendous complexity, and great social important, such as AIDS testing.
Short of pre-pub review, the reporter can summarize key points in the story for the source, read back some quotes, and check facts, as many magazines do as a matter of course. This can lead to backpedaling by the source, and troublesome and time-consuming negotiations, but such efforts may cost for getting it right.
Tom French, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting for the St. Petersburg Times, thinks of pre-publication review as a method of reporting. Rather than asking him to "please leave out that part," the source is more likely to remember a better anecdote than the one the writer planned to use.
In the case described above, Dr. Ink might say, "As a general rule, we don't offer review of a story in advance of publication, but I'd be willing to go over some things with you, like quotes or facts, especially if you think there's a problem with accuracy. I really want to get this right."
Routine pre-publication review should remain a journalistic no-no. The Doctor is willing to sign off on occasional strategic use of the method.
