Scott Stanford: Prior review would damage credibility
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Scott Stanford
Scott Stanford is general manager of the Steamboat Pilot & Today. Call him at 970-871-4202 or email sstanford@SteamboatToday.com
Steamboat Springs — I have received requests recently to allow the subjects of stories to read those stories prior to publication.
A person profiled in Locals wanted to read the story first. A Realtor with the listing on a property profiled in our real estate section wanted to see the story before it published. Even School Board member John DeVincentis asked to see the story about e-mails he sent in 2004 and 2005 before it published.
Such requests aren't new. During my first week as editor in 2001, I met with some of the Steamboat Springs City Council members. One suggested we write council stories the day after council meetings and allow council members or staff to read the stories prior to publication.
The reasoning is always the same - the subjects simply want to make sure the information in the stories is accurate. Indeed, many of the errors we make likely could have been prevented if we had simply let the articles' subjects review the stories in advance and call such errors to our attention.
Still, I always refuse such requests.
The concept at issue is "prior review" - allowing someone outside the newspaper staff to review and edit content before publication by the newspaper. We just don't do it.
Writing is not a reporter's most important skill; rather, the ability to gather information is. Reporters must be able to record accurately what they see, hear and smell. They must know where to go for information and what questions to ask.
As editors, we have to trust their observations, even if they sometimes make mistakes. When we start allowing story subjects, prior to publication, to second-guess the information the reporter gathered and what the reporter saw and heard, the story's credibility is compromised.
Besides, prior review simply isn't practical. Imagine a crime story. If we give law enforcement the opportunity for prior review of that story "just to make sure the facts are accurate," don't we then have to afford the accused the same opportunity? How would we resolve disputes between the two?
The e-mails story is another example. Who gets prior review of such a story? DeVincentis? Cyndy Simms? Joby Mc-
Gowan? Donna Howell? The School Board? Where does the list end, how would we resolve conflicting edit suggestions and who would trust a story filtered through so many lenses?
Of course, many of the requests for prior review are on stories about less serious matters such as the Locals and real estate profiles mentioned earlier. Why not allow prior review in such cases? Two reasons - first, prior review erases the line between news and advertising content and, second, prior review of feature pieces opens the door to prior review of other articles.
Many argue that the newspaper and its reporters have their own biases. I could try to debate that, but I likely could not change perceptions. As it stands, readers are free to factor in such perceived biases as they form their judgments of newspaper articles. If we allowed others to review stories prior to publication, the matter becomes much more complicated. Then, it's not just the newspaper's perceived biases that the reader has to contend with.
If you have questions about prior review or other newspaper issues, please call or e-mail me.
Comments
me2 6 years ago
I understand your need for control of the content and presentation of a story but I think you overestimate the ability of you and your staff to always present a factually accurate story without bias or omissions to an article. I speak from the viewpoint of a professional with over 35 yrs experience in my field (which is interesting but by no means important in the scheme of world events.) Over those years I have given radio, TV and newsprint interviews on my area of expertise. I have found that the most misrepresented forum is the print media. Why? Because when I deliver the information orally, it can't be changed. Maybe omitted, but not changed. Use them or not, but please try to understand them. You state that "Writing is not a reporter's most important skill; rather, the ability to gather information is." I couldn't disagree more! I have found that some writers either have a poor ability to gather accurate information, or add their own bias and therefore write an inaccurate article. When the resulting article is possibly the only source of information the reader gets on the subject, how can you say writing is not the most important skill? Theoretically, the writer should be the expert on the subject of the article, not the reader. You accept mistakes like it has little relevance on the outcome of the article. This sounds careless to me. What then, is the purpose of the article? You say "readers are free to factor in such perceived biases as they form their judgments of newspaper articles." How do they know what is bias and what is not if they are not already accurately informed on the subject? I think you assume your reader has all the information they need before reading an article. I have seen articles with correct facts but some important facts missing, which changed the tone of the article. Is this a misunderstanding of the subject matter, an omission that is considered irrelevant to the story or is it bias on the part of the writer? How would I even come to this dilemma? Oh yes, I just happen to be completely informed about the subject matter. I just hope all the other readers have the same information so they can factor in any bias they see as well. You see, the facts may or may not be accurate but a word here or there can change the facts in the mind of the reader. We all have biases. I think you underestimate your ability to separate bias from all articles. Bias can be OK if you and the reader recognize it as a bias and the reader accepts it as a part of the article. I'm opinionated and biased. Aren't you? And don't you think it somehow creeps into your decisions and writing? I'm sure your biases even affect which articles are or are not published. A newspaper with no bias is a staff uninformed, with no opinions or in denial of their bias. But then that's just me. Strive to be informed, inform your readers, accept your bias and move on. It's better that way.
Scott Stanford 6 years ago
Me2:
I understand what you are saying. Newspaper journalists routinely write stories on subject matters quoting people with far greater expertise in the subject. So why not have those individuals read stories prior to publication? Because then the stories become something less than honest. Then, suddenly, the subject wants to alter a quote slightly to make him or herself look better or the subject wants to remove a differing opinion as inaccurate or question the credibility of someone a differing opinion.
The problem with the bias of the newspaper is that it depends on the individual reader. Poll 10 of our regular readers - 5 would say we are a liberal rag and 5 would say we are a conservative, right-wing schill for the business community.
Here is what I mean about writing and reporting - You can't write your way around inadequate reporting (information gathering), though there are many in this business who try. There are no right words that will hide a lack of research and observation. You can, however, with the help of a good editor, report your way around your lack of writing skill. The goal, of course, is to be accomplished at both.
Further, I think we do address this issue by opening our pages to writers with differing opinions through letters to the editor, guest columns and even articles written and submitted by those outside the newspaper staff. Recently, we have given such space to Leadership Steamboat, a group advocating for a bicycle-friendly community and local Republicans.
When you pick up a Steamboat Today and see a staff story, you know who it was written by and that it was edited by the newspaper staff and no one else. The reader can take that to the bank and form whatever conclusions he or she wants based upon it.
Final point - Until the electronic media choose to use all interview material in full, story subjects are still susceptible to selective use of quotes and in formation. Ask Terry Francona of the Red Sox how he feels about the selective use of his responses to questions about Roger Clemens.
Scott Stanford Editor, Steamboat Pilot & Today editor@steamboatpilot.com
corduroy 6 years ago
I can understand people wanting to read what is written about them ahead of time. Honestly the Pilot gets some facts wrong way too often, or has stupid grammar errors because spell check doesn't catch it. I've seen stories that I know the real story on skewed, and that's not reporting the news professionally in my opinion. If I ever get interviewed by the Pilot its going to be VIA email only, so I have the documentation of what was said, in writing, just in case...
whyquestion 6 years ago
this is USA i hope,not communist china!!!! not reading the stories ahead of time creates dialog, the subject of the story can always write a letter explaining the errors, right???? stanford said any errors would be printed on the next FRONT PAGE right??????
sickofitall 6 years ago
lol, yeah if you guys actually got it right it would be a miracle. Keep publishing unsubstantiated news, to just "get er' done" I wont expect you to stand by what you write.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID