The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certai…
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.