Can a journalist be held accountable in this situation?
I have a friend who was interviewed by a person from the herald. This "journalist" promised to let my friend review the contents of the article prior to submission but never did. I only have my friend's side of the story but she claims that there are portions attributed to her as quotes that have been completely fabricated. The writer also used her full name without permission to which my friend is now having to deal with a substantial amount of unwanted correspondence.
I don't think there is any legal remedy but is there any recourse? I'll admit to being surprised at the lack of any professionalism (assuming of course, I have the correct side of the story).
That's pretty awful, and if your friend contacts the paper, they should at the very least print a correction. Fabricating content is a serious offense, and I'm sure that the Herald would want to know if any of their writers are doing that. Who knows, maybe this writer has a history of similar offenses. How was the original interview conducted? If it was a taped interview, the journalist would be expected to be able to show the recording of the original interview.
As far as legal recourse, it's probably pretty difficult unless the actual content of the article is libellous (paints her in an unflattering light, regardless of whether it's true or not).
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Not much your friend can do, you would normally have a writen contract to grant final edit approval, and no newspaper will abide that.
You could put in a complaint, I believe their is an ethics council out east somewhere but if your friend doesn't have a tape of the interview she hasn't a leg to stand on, I would also not be suprised if your friend said alot more than she remembers, journos tend to be good at keeping conversations going and getting people to let on way more than they intend.
octothorp said pretty much everything I was going to say. I'd send the editor an email, and if you don't get a prompt response, I'd follow it up with a phone call.
I have a friend who was interviewed by a person from the herald. This "journalist" promised to let my friend review the contents of the article prior to submission but never did. I only have my friend's side of the story but she claims that there are portions attributed to her as quotes that have been completely fabricated. The writer also used her full name without permission to which my friend is now having to deal with a substantial amount of unwanted correspondence.
I don't think there is any legal remedy but is there any recourse? I'll admit to being surprised at the lack of any professionalism (assuming of course, I have the correct side of the story).
I would think your friend is lying actually.
There is no way a reporter at the Herald would let a subject read the article for approval before publication. Period. No one does that. Even at a weekly.
Secondly, it would have to be pretty interesting circumstances for the reporter to agree not to use the subject's full name. Its not impossible but unlikely.
That would be standard across the industry.
Sounds like your friend didn't take it seriously, said some things and got caught with her pants down.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
Mrs. Impaler used to be a magazine editor and has done a lot of interviews. As Cowperson said, the subjects don't get to review content, unless it's a "fluff" piece, and even then it would be highly unusual. Secondly, the interviews are recorded, so it would have been pretty easy to check if quotes were fabricated. I be with Cowperson.
I can see a young, newly minted J student taking extreme liberties with a interview subject's words. Not all interviews are recorded. Tons of journos take old fashion pen and paper notes.
Former newspaper and magazine writer and editor here, in my first career. No reporter especially at a large paper like the Herald would agree to let a source read a story before publishing. I was a journalist for over 20 years and a number of times I had sources who regretted saying something and denied what I said was said. One time my then-editor suggested i sue a source for what was said about my integrity. I don't believe your friend's story. Don't even bother contacting the Herald. They'll do nothing, nor should they. They probably get these complaints from time to time. Sorry, your friend is lying.
I can see a young, newly minted J student taking extreme liberties with a interview subject's words. Not all interviews are recorded. Tons of journos take old fashion pen and paper notes.
Your post is contradictory. New journalism students don't even know what a "pen and paper" are.
Although I don't have much more to add, it is common policy for news outlets to use full names. There are a number of reasons for it, but credibility tops the list. I don't know the premise of the story, but as stated above, no reporter will ever show the source the article before it is published.
Situations like this are often taken to an ombudsman, but there has to be a valid claim and I believe most news outlets get complaints like this on a daily basis.
Most of this is all covered in an outlet's ethics and standards guide. Perhaps your friend can take a look at the Herald's?
I would guess that rule number one is don't trust the media . . . I mean that Juan Hrdina guy is all levels of shady.
But anyways, no newspaper or magazine is going to give an interview subject oversight over an entire article, the furthest they might go is to fact check what was said by the interviewee to make sure that they're not lying.
And Cowperson can correct me, but even going off the record doesn't protect you, it only really protects your name from being attached to the quote.
You go from CaptainCrunch disgruntled office worker, to Junior party administrator.
Or if the quotes would put your friends life in jeopardy.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The only case I can imagine where a paper would withhold a full name is to protect the source such as in a crime story. As for going off the record, it happens sometimes but is unusual. I'd trust a reporter and disagree with the view that the media and reporters are crooked. there is the odd one but they're rare. I have dealt with many and they're honest and well intentioned. Mistakes get made but they don't le.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
The only case I can imagine where a paper would withhold a full name is to protect the source such as in a crime story. As for going off the record, it happens sometimes but is unusual. I'd trust a reporter and disagree with the view that the media and reporters are crooked. there is the odd one but they're rare. I have dealt with many and they're honest and well intentioned. Mistakes get made but they don't le.
Tabloids like the New York Post stretch that a fair bit but generally, standard dailies and weeklies would fit that discription.
It would be a pretty hard life if you were making stuff up. And not a long-lasting one.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Tabloids like the New York Post stretch that a fair bit but generally, standard dailies and weeklies would fit that discription.
It would be a pretty hard life if you were making stuff up. And not a long-lasting one.
Cowperson
Yes, journalism is a weird field, in the UK it is absoloutly fine to lie, steal, bug, hack or in general break the law 5 ways from Sunday to get a story and to be quite frank most other Journos are fine with it, but god forbid you make something up. That will get you tarred and feathered
I have a friend who was interviewed by a person from the herald. This "journalist" promised to let my friend review the contents of the article prior to submission but never did. I only have my friend's side of the story but she claims that there are portions attributed to her as quotes that have been completely fabricated. The writer also used her full name without permission to which my friend is now having to deal with a substantial amount of unwanted correspondence.
I don't think there is any legal remedy but is there any recourse? I'll admit to being surprised at the lack of any professionalism (assuming of course, I have the correct side of the story).
Definetly a slippery slope with reporters - as unless she specified that it was "off the record" or didn't want something published, from what I recall with any newspaper I worked with - she is fair game my friend.
I wrote probably 100 sports stories for the Herald in the early 2000's, and not once did I ask for permission to use someones name or their story. I think if you are talking to reporter - you have to know you are going to find your name and quotes somewhere in print.
Can a journalist be held accountable in this situation?
