Can't believe the Washington Post would be OK with this

This is terrible. His sources own him. What a pawn. He is not a real journalist.

 

There's the answer Dick should have had in his job interview.

 

Wow. This is horrible. I may have left after he asked that question and said, 'Thanks, but we're done here.'

There is no way allowing sources to read a story before it's printed is acceptable. None. Zip. No exceptions.

 

i just write rough drafts, send them to my sources and have them write the final versions. i shave four or five hours off my work week. works out pretty good, actually. i mean i'm going to them for the information anyway.

 

But why? That's the relevant question. Say it's not acceptable, fine by me. But tell me why this is absolutely not acceptable.

 

I think a lot of you guys who are serious hard-liners on this would be stunned to hear that it's not all that unheard of for people who do longform narrative journalism. I've been to a couple narrative conferences where people talk about this, and how they do it regularly on stories that are about sensitive topics. I've personally never done it, although I don't think it's quite the egregious sin many of you do.

You don't ever give someone the power to edit anything in your story. That should be obvious. But let me play Devil's Advocate here: What great harm is done if someone doesn't have the power to change what's going into the story? I don't think I would agree to it in the situation the Post reporter did. But I do think, in stories where you're trying to write scenes and convey a level of intimacy with a sensitive topic, it's most important to get it right. To make sure the scenes are as factual as they can be.

Let me ask this: What is the difference between letting someone read something, and reading them the story? Because people read long sections of stories to sources all the time, especially when you're dealing with sensitive stuff. If you enter someone's life for months and months, neither of you want there to be any surprises when the story finally runs. I've sat in someone's living room and literally asked them a question about every single sentence in a 8,000 word story, because it was that important that the facts were airtight.

Saying you're writing a story about parents who lost a child. Maybe the kid committed suicide. You're asking them to open up an enormous wound and let you inside so you can poke around and look for details that will help share the story. Their memories are the engine that drives the narrative. What's more important: Getting it right, or satisfying a rule you can't even explain?

Remember, you're making it clear to them they are not the editor.

 

If it's a fluff piece that you just want to get right, I don't have a problem with it. I have never done it, but I can see someone making sure the facts are right.
Now, if it's something controversial like the piece that started this whole thing could have become? Then no way do I allow the sources to read it beforehand. If I need to check facts, I will check facts, but they don't get my story.
Giving a source a story that isn't published on something controversial allows them to know exactly where you are hitting them and allows them to get in front of it way before you even go to press in the first place. They want to respond to your piece? You can try to get a follow-up. You don't get to change the story. You let them change the story you might as well never run it because it will just keep changing and keep changing until you have no hand in the process anymore.

 

I take exception to your characterization of, say, a 8,000 word narrative as a "puff piece." As I said in my example, I've heard of people doing this with stories about families who have lost a child. Hardly a puff piece. But I agree with the statement that you wouldn't do it in a situation where a source would then be better prepared to react to a controversial thing in the story.

I think there a lot journalism rules that have a zero exception policy. Making up scenes, quotes, etc. Those things can never be broken.

But showing someone a draft beforehand (as long as you and tell them they cannot demand changes) is a case by case rule.

 

There's a shitton of sacred journalistic rules that 80% of working journalists couldn't come up with a coherent reason for.

 

Hell, half the people here thought it was fine and dandy when the Esquire writer made up the opening to his Northern Illinois shooting story.

 

I still feel like that was never resolved. Did we ever confirm how that story was fact-checked? Was there any kind of disclaimer that ran with that story the way it did when Junod wrote about Michael Stipe?

 

Puff piece was poor word choice on my part, I just meant any story where you wouldn't expect to get a ton of angry phone calls in the morning because you didn't give everyone 10 inches to speak.