“Can I review the story before it’s published?”
It’s a question I dread getting when doing journalistic pieces because the answer is almost always no.
It’s all about journalistic integrity
The issue comes down to journalistic ethics and integrity. In short, journalists should seek to tell stories in an unbiased, independent fashion. If I were to write a piece about a fishing issue and interview a politician and a fisher, then share that story with that politician for them to “check for accuracy,” few would see that story as truly unbiased and independently written, even if they don’t ask for changes or if I just ignore any requests (as is my right).
Unbiased and independent stories are also something publications take very seriously, and rightly so. Writers have had their stories killed and have been blocked from publications for sharing their stories with sources before publication. For obvious reasons, no writer wants to be barred from working.
You just want to ensure accuracy
I also want to ensure accuracy! This is why I record my conversations. I can go back, double-check things, and quote you accurately. It’s why sometimes I reach out to external sources to verify information or double-check that my interpretation or description of technical or scientific facts is spot on. It’s also why I may ask you questions “I should know the answer to because I’m a marine biologist.” I want to check my assumptions and that I’m not incorrectly interpreting your work.
Scientists, in particular, often argue that they only want to see a story to ensure accuracy. To be fair, I know plenty of scientists who’ve read a story about their research only to be disappointed with factual errors. Writers, like scientists, are only human. They will make mistakes. Just like scientists do (hello, erratum to peer-review publications!).
Even with good intentions, scientists have and will edit pieces to fit their own needs “to be helpful.” They have been biased, and they have tried to control stories. Scientists aren’t always as objective as they think they are.
If I let one source look, I should let the other sources look too
If a story involves multiple sources, allowing one to review the story and not the others isn’t very fair. Show the story to all sources, and suddenly, you can end up with conflicting “improvements” or even demands:
Why were they introduced first and not me?
Why are you talking about them more than me?
Why aren’t you mentioning my shiny new thing?
Why are you mentioning their shiny new thing?
Why are you mentioning that thing we never want to be talked about again?
Why are they in the piece? They don’t like what I did.
Why are they not in the piece? They love what I did and would give you a much better quote.
And so on. Oh, and if you’re a scientist claiming scientists would never do this…I assure you they do.
What’s more, letting a source look at one story can spill over into other stories. Imagine I write a story about Scientist A’s research. Scientist A asks to review the story, which I let them. A few months later, I’m writing another story, this time about Scientist B’s work. Scientist B also wants to review the story. If I say no, I’m showing bias in favour of Scientist A.
Here’s another example. At some point in the future, a different writer is interviewing Scientist A. Scientist A asks to review the piece. The writer says no. The Scientist is, at best, confused, at worse, angry. They’ve reviewed stories covering their work before. Why can’t they do it again?
When the answer is yes…partly
There are circumstances where I (or other writers) may share a snippet with a source. These are:
If I need to fact or accuracy-check something. In this case, I will either send the relevant part of the text to ensure it is ok or jump on a call to run through it. If something is amiss, the source may make a suggestion to improve accuracy. However, some publications restrict this kind of fact-checking.
If I need to clarify a quote, normally from someone whose first language is not English. Let’s face it, for most of us, working in a second, third, or even fourth language can be tricky. It’s not uncommon for people to use the wrong word or take a long, overly complicated path to explain something. Often I can clarify things in the interview, but now and again, I will do this after. Again, what I will/won’t do partly depends on the publication rules. Some say the first quote is the quote. Others will allow changes if something is factually incorrect…like if someone uses the wrong word, for example. Nobody allows quotes to be entirely rewritten.
If there is something particularly sensitive being covered in the piece. In this case, I will chat with the editor first, and then I/we will have a discussion with the source before starting any interview so everyone is comfortable with how things will move forward.
What if you have to have your answers pre-approved by your boss?
This is something that typically comes up for company or government spokespeople. Explain the situation to the writer before jumping on a call. You could ask to do a written interview (the writer sends you questions, and you respond in writing). The writer may or may not be ok with a written interview. If they are, bear in mind that deadlines can be tight, so you’ll need to move quickly.
When you really aren’t comfortable with not seeing the story
If you are hesitant about talking to a journalist for a story without seeing it before publication, be upfront with them when they first contact you. Often the writer will be able to address your specific concerns. Honestly, we’re pretty nice people, and we understand!
If the writer can’t alleviate your concerns, you always have the choice not to speak to them. Sure, we’ll be a bit sad we can’t include you, but that’s the nature of the work.
*For corporate pieces, it is much more common for sources to review an article because the source is usually the company’s client. Corporate writing is not 100% independent. Journalism should be.