Generally, when I conduct an interview, I send a link to the finished work to the subject of the interview. Often, however, they will ask to see the work before it is published in order to "correct any mis-statements they may have made." I always acquiesce to these requests to see the content before it is published and to date, no one has had any real issues with the content. I don't always include the title. In this article, though, I did include a title, the one that is on the article now. When I submitted it for publication on Yahoo! News, my editor requested that I change the title. So, it was published with a title different than the one now show. It was accurate and truthful, but could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. One of which was somewhat controversial.
The subject of the interview, wrote me back and strongly objected to the new title which was included in the URL, as well. He objected so strongly that he said he would withdraw permission to use his comments if it were not changed. While it might not be a legally defensible threat, I like to maintain good relations with my contacts, especially when the request to change the title did not reduce the integrity of the article itself.
I contacted my editor and explained the situation. He was able to immediately change the title, and request that the article be taken down from Yahoo! as this was the only way to eliminate the disputed title from the URL. Meanwhile, the article was added to Y!CN under the new title. Once the original was purged from Yahoo!'s cache, it was resubmitted and published at Yahoo! News.
In all it took more than a day and a number of back and forth communications to get everything changed and page views on the original submission were permanently wiped from the system. I felt that changing the title was important as an act of courtesy to someone who had granted me an hour of his time. My relationship and open line of communication with the responsible editor at Y!CN was also instrumental in my ability to accomplish this change.
While the disputed title was factually accurate, would not be considered offensive, and could have been left as is, I felt that changing it was the right thing to do to ease the anxiety my interview subject had. If i had included the disputed title in the prepublication draft I send to him and he had not objected at the time, I might have made a less-strenuous attempt to make the change. If the interviewee simply had second thoughts about what they clearly said during the interview such that it changed the character of the discussion, it would also be a different case.
Think of the example of Newt Gingrich criticizing the Paul Ryan budget, for example. If he had said what he said in the interview and then asked the interviewer to omit those remarks before they were published or televised, I think it would be disingenuous of the interviewer as a journalist to edit the discussion to change its original character. It would be fine to include a note that Gingrich later said he didn't really mean what he said or that he meant to say he supports Ryan's budget, but pretending that it never happened is misleading to the reader or television audience in my opinion. In a case like that, I would have to stand my ground.
In the case of the title change I made on the above-referenced article however, there was no change to the character or content of the original interview, so there was really no reason for me to object to the request.
When we interview people and quote them directly, we have an obligation to represent their words and tone accurately, and, where possible within the limits of our own journalistic integrity, to protect them against threats, real or perceived, to their professional and personal integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment