

A Warning to the Tech Community on Abusive Journalists - jzdziarski
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3958

======
Mvandenbergh
"Another way to tell a good journalist is to tell them you’d like a chance to
review the story, to double check it for factual errors, prior to publishing
it. If they decline, or claim that their news agency has rules against this,
then you’re possibly dealing with a journalist who doesn’t care about the
facts, and possibly is even trying to blame his/her news agency for it."

More or less no newspaper will do this. Reputable newspapers will have fact-
checkers who will verify stated facts and direct quotes but giving people
sight of the finished article before publication is something that no-one
does.

~~~
jawns
I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No
reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is,
allowing a source to see a story before it's published. And indeed, doing so
could get a reporter in very hot water, if not fired.

So how do reporters, editors, and media outlets make sure that they get their
facts right? By doing some of the things suggested -- confirming statements of
fact, asking for clarification, and sometimes repeating back a short quote to
make sure they haven't misheard anything.

But to allow a source to read the whole thing before publication goes way
beyond confirming statements of fact.

At the first magazine I worked at, I had the liberty of being able to call up
sources as I was working on a piece. I would typically pick out any statements
of fact that they had made during our interviews and restate the fact, asking
them to confirm each statement.

There are typically two kinds of objections, and you don't hear either of them
very frequently. One is "that's factually inaccurate." Those are the easiest
to clear up. The other is, "I never said that!" That's generally not an
objection to a statement of fact; it's an objection to a statement of opinion
that the person regrets making, or a lie that they have been caught in. I can
remember one time that I had a disputed quote on a cassette recorder; we ran
with it. Another time, I had only my handwritten notes, and we decided it
wasn't worth the risk.

As for this particular blog post, anytime I hear someone accuse a scribe of
slandering them or a television/radio reporter of libeling them, I take their
accusation with a grain of salt. If you don't know the difference between
slander and libel, you probably don't know what constitutes either.

~~~
hackuser
> I am a former editor (newspapers and magazines) and now work in tech. No
> reputable media outlet that I know of would permit prior review -- that is,
> allowing a source to see a story before it's published.

Perhaps in the past. You can find many stories about, for example, politicians
in DC who require exactly that as a condition for access. They even would
insist on rewriting quotes. It was a big deal in 2012 when the NY Times and a
few others made a policy decision to restrict (but not eliminate IIRC) such
deals with sources.[1] Note that these publications were allowing such deals
until then -- and if the NY Times and Reuters are doing it, imagine what the
standards of your local paper are.

Some attribute it to the rise of the Internet. Sources aren't as dependent on
the the professional news media to get their stories out. If the NY Times
won't agree to the terms, maybe BuzzFeed or Red State or someone else will, or
the source can publish on their own website, or on the website of a
publication they own.[2]

People like to criticize the professional news media, and certainly it has its
faults. But we will miss it when it's gone.

[1] [http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-
poli...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-policy-the-
times-forbids-after-the-fact-quote-approval)

[2]
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Dz2wbYoI)

------
madaxe_again
This is, sadly, what happens when you mistake today's "journalism" (public
relations) for journalism.

They're not interested in stories, per se - they're interested in enhancing
their "personal brand", the brands that pay them to get them coverage, and the
brands that their media agency contractually demands they support. Stories are
just a vehicle to that end.

------
Bahamut
This applies more than to just tech. One of my friends was interviewed by a
reporter for Time about a chiptune album he worked on, and he had nothing but
gushing praise for chiptunes - somehow the reporter twisted his words and even
made up stuff that he did not say to slander the production style. Even when
he messaged her to correct it, she did not remove the lies completely until he
started a Twitter campaign amongst his connections to cry foul about the
egregious misreporting, and threatened a Digg post (while Digg was still
popular) - only then she relented.

These are lessons in being careful who you talk to. Din't let out more
information than you feel you need to unless you trust them, as a guard
against unscrupulous people.

------
incision
I wouldn't limit this to Journalists.

It's solid advice for dealing with most anyone, particularly people with any
sort of 'power' over your work and decisions.

With slight modification, these are the same sort of red flags to note
precautions to take when dealing with a manager, executive or customer.

I think managing the expectations of non/semi-technical people and taking care
in the way we evaluate and represent each other's work to those people is an
important, but often overlooked part of this business.

------
frenchman_in_ny
Strange - I just clicked on the link and got a CloudFlare page, checking my
browser for "compatibility" and DDOS, before loading the actual site.

Anyone else getting that?

~~~
tomp
That's what sometimes happens when HN frontpage DDOSes a webpage that is
protected by CloudFlare. It's just checking to see if you're a "legitimate"
visitor or an automated bot.

------
IamThePherocity
I don't think anyone has any illusions anymore that journalism as a means of
informing the reader is at best dying, if not already dead. If a news
organization can lie, then there is no point in in reading news, because
fictitious news has no value to the reader. Throw in the polarization and
sensationalism between the absurd right and left political extremes, and you
have theater, not news.

I now follow journalists that I've vetted and trust to some extent, and
heavily use sites like this to help filter the nonsense. I'll skim BBC and Al
Jezeria English, but even them, I withhold opinion until I can get a sense of
accuracy and corroboration.

I feel Apple may have the best approach. Comment on nothing, release press
releases, and only conduct interviews with vetted reporters.

------
idlewords
I waded through this swamp of words and all I get from it is that the author
is angry because a journalist was mean to him.

~~~
wernercd
You need to learn to read then.

There is a difference between being angry and borderline/actual harassment.
Ignoring requests to cease contact and calling someone racist without cause
are crossing a line from the former into the latter. And those actions coming
from a "professional" is enough to warrant a letter to this individuals boss.

This writer seems to have just cause, and despite a relative wall-o-text,
makes his case rather thoughtfully.

------
IBM
That's some great revisionist history. I find it laughable that he says he
never tries to mislead when he did exactly that with his presentation. He then
tried to blame it on the press that covered it, but really he got the reaction
he wanted. Violet Blue's piece was spot on.

~~~
frowaway001
Oh, hi Violet!

------
fuzzywalrus
While interesting, I found it interesting that Mr. Zdziarski libels that the
original article by Violet Blue on ZDnet was written in angst over his
religious views despite no evidence other than a few loose tweets unrelated to
him or his religious views. [http://www.zdnet.com/the-apple-backdoor-that-
wasnt-700003178...](http://www.zdnet.com/the-apple-backdoor-that-
wasnt-7000031781/)

------
tomp
> News agencies rarely hold their own writers accountable, especially in tech,
> where misogyny and misandry thrive, and where personal attacks generate
> headlines.

We've reached a new low in name-calling and FUD-spreading if one feels the
need to use both _misogyny_ and _misandry_ in the same statement. At least, I
cannot think of any reason not to use "people-hating" instead other than for
dramatic effect (eliciting strong emotions from the reader).

~~~
sp332
Some are misogynist, some are misandrist. Not both at the same time.

~~~
lotharbot
There are those who identify as neither male nor female, and who furthermore
are biased against both. (That's probably not what the article was talking
about, but it is theoretically possible.)

~~~
lotharbot
I would like to note that I'm not accusing all people in that category of
bias, only noting that it's a phenomenon that exists. Misogyny and misandry
are not as incompatible of ideas as they seem. (For those who think this
observation is downvote-worthy, I'd love an explanation.)

