THE CAVALIER Daily ombudsman is charged with critiquing the newspaper's policies, coverage, business dealings and recent actions, and can make suggestions or respond to non-staffers' queries, criticisms or praise.
This week's column is just that -- a response to a non-staffers annoyed query and a few suggestions about source-journalist relationships. The context is this: A source took issue with Cavalier Daily Associate Editor Steve Austin's Thursday, April 5 Life section story about students with disabilities.
It's a somewhat familiar proverb that it usually isn't what we say that is most important, but rather how we say it. In this specific case the source wasn't disputing the accuracy of his written words, only the contextual presentation and publication permission, two common source complaints.
Sources sometimes believe their words aren't presented in a proper context, which can lead to having to take heat from readers. That was the case recently when a source charged that the spirit in which he was quoted reeked of yellow journalism.
With apologies to William Shakespeare, sources often protest too much, methinks. Yellow journalism of the Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst era was sensational and scandalous and The Cavalier Daily's story presentation has no resemblance to yellow journalism.
Sources can seem desperate to rehabilitate themselves if they have offended readers by trying to build a case of unfair treatment. One specific issue this time was a violation of protocol with an e-mail interview.
The Cavalier Daily's policy does not permit reporters to conduct interviews via e-mail, with the exception of top University administrators; this source was not a top administrator. There is good -- and bad -- that can come from e-mail interviews and the policy at it stands needs revisiting.
Another complaint was the newspaper violated policy by not reciting the source's comments back to him to confirm accuracy before publication and that it didn't obtain his permission to quote him.
That complaint often is spurious, seemingly trumped up to support righteous indignation. The source claimed The Cavalier Daily policy mandates reporters to verify accuracy after the completion of an interview by reading quotes and information back to the source.
The actual policy calls for "new" reporters to verify quotes via that method. Senior writers are only "encouraged" to read back quotes "if" the source requests it or "if" the reporter is unsure of their accuracy. It is hard to image the need for any reporter to read back comments from an e-mail interview when the source comments are in writing.
Reporters have an ethical obligation to make sure sources understand that what they say or write is on the record and can, and likely will, be published. But again, in this specific case, it is hard to understand how the source could claim ignorance.
In reviewing the e-mail exchange, the reporter clearly identified himself and told the source he was writing an article. The reporter indicated he was seeking the source's "perspective." The reporter indicated his deadline and informed the source that his input was important. The source e-mailed his responses, seemingly a willing participant.
Journalists are reluctant to admit fault. Their success is based on their accuracy and credibility. But when a source asks for an apology, as in this case, reporters and editors should consider their pre-publication actions, reviewing if a correction or clarification is appropriate. This is another way journalists gain credibility.
A non-response, or flippant response to the source, shouldn't be an option. It only further agitates and angers the source. While the source might not like the response, they deserve a professional response.
The newspaper's fair play policy pledges it will "show respect for the dignity, privacy, rights and well-being of people encountered in the course of gathering and presenting news." It also pledges to make prompt and complete correction of its errors. If it determines a correction is not necessary, the newspaper policy offers an opportunity for an involved party to write a letter to the editor.
The Cavalier Daily should follow policies. It should also regularly review, update and/or eliminate policies as needed. Sources should be careful what and how they make comment, before and after publication.
It doesn't appear the newspaper owes an apology in this specific case, but it should, if it hasn't already, contact and speak with the source and offer to publish a letter to the editor -- one that meets newspaper publication standards.
That would be an appropriate resolution.
John Irby is The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. He can be contacted at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
