Hi:

Ok, as a bruised and bashed 27 yr veteran of dealing with the press, some
additional comments:

1.  I am not against talking to reporters, but I am disturbed about the
U.S. press and its accuracy of reporting.  It starts in journalism school.
If student reporters were graded on the accuracy of their stories, most
would fail the course.  In the sciences, we would fail any student who
wrote an essay on the same topic and got it so wrong.

2.  There are good reporters, and you want to cultivate a good relationship
with them.  Help them find stories.  They and their editors will appreciate
it.

3.  << "I will give all reporters a interview AS
LONG as i get to look and approve the finnished product" >>

Both sides of this issue have some truth.  Fact checking should not mean
that you ask if you spelled my name correctly.  The reporter and editor
have the option of writing the final story the way they want - but there is
a difference between accurately reporting documented facts, versus the
differences of opinion among several people.

I found this to be a very contentious issue at a workshop for technical
writers that was put on in conjunction with a national conservation society
meeting.

These were science writers.  Some of national magazines/journals not only
won't provide a copy of the article to review, they will fire the reporter
who provides it.  At the same time, other publications said they sometimes
allowed it, and more than one reporter said he/she would provide it if
requested regardless of the policy of their employer.

The difference, those reporters who would provide a copy for review said
that they wanted to be accurate  AND THEY WANTED THE TRUST of the person
they interviewed, so that they could do follow on stories.

4.  The people at this workshop (reporters, writers, publishers, and some
scientists) indicated that they thought that local news was most likely to
get it wrong, that the "professional" magazines had more time for the
story, so would get it right, and that TV was the most iffy - cutting back
to sound bites, with national worse than local.

My take after hundreds of interviews is different, and it is biased because
I live in a small town.  Our local TV is great!!  They do a really good
job, and we see them each year.  Our local paper is ok, depends on the
reporter.  The old guy who never takes notes is a pain, the younger
reporters really put in some time and effort.  National magazines and
journals, some are very good, some very bad - no predicting.

National TV - aggressive, wants the story for headlines - I've turned these
down.

5.  You always have the option of not doing the story.

6.  There has been one outstanding glimmer of hope in all of this.  Some
years ago, I made the front page of a Seattle paper.  I got a clipping from
their ombudsman.  The ombudsman attached a questionnaire.  Was the article
accurate?  Did it cover the story?  Was I correctly quoted?  Was the
headline appropriate.

That is the one and only time anyone ever asked, did we get it right?

Jerry

<< "I will give all reporters a interview AS
LONG as i get to look and approve the finnished product" >>