|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 14, 2006Letting sources see copyShould journalists let sources see drafts of copy? It's a warmly debated question among hacks. That's partly because there is no one-size-fits-all answer. And plenty of people who think there is. Without rehearsing the issues (another day, perhaps), it is interesting to note from a profile of Seymour Hersh, journalistic hero to many of us, that the great man does it as a matter of course. From a piece by Julian Borger in today's Graun: Finally, Hersh sets out on late-night drives, dropping drafts of his stories through the letterboxes of his sources to give them a chance to confirm he has interpreted their information correctly and that he is not going to publish anything that will put the US at risk. To some editors, this would be a disciplinary offence. Les Posted by leshack at April 14, 2006 10:58 AM | TrackBackComments
Yerse. Features, fine. News, no. Depends, dunnit? You don't want an injunction caused by the injured party waving a photocopy of your deathless prose under the nose of a weary judge at 3am. But you want to get your facts right. Sometimes that means going back to the source. Let the hack make the call. S I read this piece too. If I had his sources, I'd bend over backwards to keep them happy. Posted by: neil Baker at April 14, 2006 07:54 PMPost a comment
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||