It's a customary practice, and I think it's a good one because it makes the story less one-sided and can diminish the appearance of it being a hit piece if it's negative. Bottom line, it's natural to want to know what the person the story is about thinks of it and what their perspective is. Obviously not all journalists seek a comment from every subject, but if they do, they often mention that they asked for a comment even if they weren't able to get one, because people want to know that they at least tried.
What could LMG have said which would change the reporting of the inaccuracies of their content? Getting a response before hand may be able to get some more information but giving corporations time to react also gives them time to act in bad faith (e.g. cover up or attempt to blackmail, etc).
Wanting to know what the person in the story things doesn't appear to me to support sharing your criticisms before posting. Something being a custom doesn't justify it being a custom (if it really is one).
(if it really is one).
I mean, I'm not a journalist, I've just been reading them for decades. It's a thing.
No story is fair if it covers individuals or organizations that have not been given the opportunity to address assertions or claims about them made by others. Fairness includes diligently seeking comment and taking that comment genuinely into account.
Just as an example that came up in a quick web search--the Washington Post is a major US newspaper and this is its stated policy. Seeking comment from story subjects is an important practice in journalism, and if you consider yourself a journalist and don't do it in a given case, you should probably have a good reason. This is why Steve felt the need to explain himself on that point.
I assumed some do it, perhaps most do and that makes it a standard.
Taking their comment into account has the potential to get more information which would prevent you reporting misinformation. I'd love to know how often their comment is useful vs how often corporations take advantage.
It's a customary practice, and I think it's a good one because it makes the story less one-sided and can diminish the appearance of it being a hit piece if it's negative. Bottom line, it's natural to want to know what the person the story is about thinks of it and what their perspective is. Obviously not all journalists seek a comment from every subject, but if they do, they often mention that they asked for a comment even if they weren't able to get one, because people want to know that they at least tried.
What could LMG have said which would change the reporting of the inaccuracies of their content? Getting a response before hand may be able to get some more information but giving corporations time to react also gives them time to act in bad faith (e.g. cover up or attempt to blackmail, etc).
Wanting to know what the person in the story things doesn't appear to me to support sharing your criticisms before posting. Something being a custom doesn't justify it being a custom (if it really is one).
I mean, I'm not a journalist, I've just been reading them for decades. It's a thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/
Just as an example that came up in a quick web search--the Washington Post is a major US newspaper and this is its stated policy. Seeking comment from story subjects is an important practice in journalism, and if you consider yourself a journalist and don't do it in a given case, you should probably have a good reason. This is why Steve felt the need to explain himself on that point.
I assumed some do it, perhaps most do and that makes it a standard.
Taking their comment into account has the potential to get more information which would prevent you reporting misinformation. I'd love to know how often their comment is useful vs how often corporations take advantage.