Re: Good Message -- A Thank You for Kim Sandstrom

[Guest guest]

Just want to say that many journalists go to a lot of trouble to do a

good job.

But there are cases where a journalist, or his editor, approaches a

topic with a clear idea of what is going to be said, and an

unshakable determination to say it no matter what evidence to the

contrary they may uncover before publication.

They need to do interviews, however, to keep up the impression that

the journalist is disinterestedly reporting the news, because that is

the way journalism is supposed to be done.

The problem arises when the journalist, or his editor, inserts THEIR

words into the interviewee's mouth when the interviewee offered no

such opinion. Too common, unfortunately. I have never tried it but

have wondered whether it might work to require the interview to be

entirely off the record unless they agree that whatever they decide

to print be reviewed for accuracy prior to publication. Since these

people have deadlines they might not go for the introduction of an

additional delay.

Rodney.

> Hello CR ALL:

>

> What huge differences there are between what people said during

> their interviews, and what actually got reported in the NY Times

> article. This was done by feature writer Hochman, in the

> NY Times feature article 23 Nov 2003, " Eat Less, Live to 140? "