Nope. You call them up and go, "This is happening and we're running a story. Care to comment?" You should even have a list of questions to ask if they agree. They can give you bullshit answers if they want, then you point those out and add that to the story. It doesn't have to affect the story. Facts are facts, and they can try to explain it away, but can't. You're still holding them accountable. You're just also giving them a chance to apologize or own up to it. And if they dont' comment, you include that.
Steve and crew are amazing tech journalists. They're doing great work. But that's a miss in this whole thing.
Did you watch the video above? Steve spend some time explaining exactly his thoughts behind not reaching out for comments. I think he argues well.
He said that he 'aggrees with Steve on everything', so no, he didn't watch the video lol.
I did watch the video. And I don't agree with him. He needs to ask for a comment.
Then the literal first sentence of your first comment was a lie.
Thats how I am used to it as well. There is always more than pure facts. And giving the other side a change explain themselves is a part of it.
That's a courtesy you can extend, but mostly it's a protection against libel - if they take you to court about a claim they dispute, being able to say "your honor, we gave them a chance to respond before going public"
In this case, there's no dispute over facts - they didn't bring up any accusations, they just took what LTT posted publicly and presented criticisms of it
For example, if you report on the president being accused of misconduct you might ask the white house for comment, but if you are criticizing a speech they made or their public actions you probably wouldn't (unless you think they'll give you something that improves the story)
OK, this I can agree with. And in fairness I was never writing about a big, constantly-updated video channel that was continually talking about itself. But it still screams to me there needs to be a chance at letting them respond.
I'm not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.
I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth
In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject
What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn't "Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes", it's "Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures"
I think you're coming at it from a place of "you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness", but journalism isn't about fairness, it's about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a "good take", and should put accuracy above all
Being fair to the people you're covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call "softball journalism"
Nope. You call them up and go, "This is happening and we're running a story. Care to comment?" You should even have a list of questions to ask if they agree. They can give you bullshit answers if they want, then you point those out and add that to the story. It doesn't have to affect the story. Facts are facts, and they can try to explain it away, but can't. You're still holding them accountable. You're just also giving them a chance to apologize or own up to it. And if they dont' comment, you include that.
Steve and crew are amazing tech journalists. They're doing great work. But that's a miss in this whole thing.
Did you watch the video above? Steve spend some time explaining exactly his thoughts behind not reaching out for comments. I think he argues well.
He said that he 'aggrees with Steve on everything', so no, he didn't watch the video lol.
I did watch the video. And I don't agree with him. He needs to ask for a comment.
Then the literal first sentence of your first comment was a lie.
Thats how I am used to it as well. There is always more than pure facts. And giving the other side a change explain themselves is a part of it.
That's a courtesy you can extend, but mostly it's a protection against libel - if they take you to court about a claim they dispute, being able to say "your honor, we gave them a chance to respond before going public"
In this case, there's no dispute over facts - they didn't bring up any accusations, they just took what LTT posted publicly and presented criticisms of it
For example, if you report on the president being accused of misconduct you might ask the white house for comment, but if you are criticizing a speech they made or their public actions you probably wouldn't (unless you think they'll give you something that improves the story)
OK, this I can agree with. And in fairness I was never writing about a big, constantly-updated video channel that was continually talking about itself. But it still screams to me there needs to be a chance at letting them respond.
I'm not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.
I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth
In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject
What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn't "Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes", it's "Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures"
I think you're coming at it from a place of "you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness", but journalism isn't about fairness, it's about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a "good take", and should put accuracy above all
Being fair to the people you're covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call "softball journalism"