The question usually comes at the end of an interview. As the reporter tucks a notebook into a camera bag, or prepares to say goodbye after a telephone interview, the interviewee asks: “Can I read your story before you publish it?”
The answer is always the same: “No.”
Western Producer policy prohibits reporters from showing stories to sources before publication, and most ethical publications have the same prohibition. It’s a matter of maintaining the trust of our readers.
Think about it. Would you, a Producer reader, feel differently about a story on herbicide efficiency if you knew the herbicide company had vetted the story first?
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Would you believe stories on controversial subjects if you knew everyone quoted had read, altered or censored remarks destined for reader consumption?
If we allowed sources to direct stories, our readers might as well subscribe instead to the source’s company newsletter.
Trust is earned, and we believe readers trust us to tell stories in an objective and fair manner. That means journalists need independence to research and report on subjects after amalgamating information from various, and often contrary, sources.
There’s an element of professional pride at issue too. A source who wants to see the story before publication is really saying he doesn’t trust the reporter to get it right.
That’s insulting to any professional.
If you, as a source, think a reporter doesn’t understand a point, go over it again. And it’s perfectly logical and acceptable to ask that your quotes be read back to you.
However, before publication, a source is not entitled to hear, read or attempt to edit comments of anyone else quoted in a story. That would be unfair to those other sources and unfair to readers, all of whom expect independent reporting.
But what about context, you ask. How do you know your remarks will be reported in the spirit intended?
There’s the rub, of course. There’s no easy answer to that. But a story that alters proper context is a story with inaccuracies. And inaccurate stories serve no one. Not the source. Not the reporter. Not the newspaper. Not the reader.
We didn’t become “the farmers’ bible” by getting facts wrong or by quoting people out of context. We earned the moniker by earning the trust of readers and sources. We’re prepared to continue earning and keeping that trust.
