advertisement

DEAR READER: I would tell you about this letter, but I'm not available

Friday, November 5, 2010 | 5:25 p.m. CDT; updated 9:48 a.m. CST, Thursday, January 19, 2012

Dear Reader,

Here's a journalism standby: "They weren’t available for comment."

If you’re older than my doddering cat, you’ve read the phrase a few hundred times in news articles.

The translation from journalese: “Hey, we know we’re missing quotes from the other side(s), but we made the attempt.”

Skeptical readers and sources might ask: How hard did you really try?

In olden days — that is, when a web was the domain of spiders and lies — editors quizzed reporters and sources complained to editors. It all happened out of sight.

No more.

The response today is public. We’re all a part of the evolving stream of news.

Tuesday night, an article about the defeat of the Taser ban proposal said this: "Representatives of the Columbia Police Department and the Columbia Police Officers Association did not respond to requests for comment."

Wednesday morning Tom Dresner replied in the article’s comments section.

“This is untrue,” the never shy deputy chief of police wrote. He went on to say he had not been contacted about results that night. Information officer Jill Wieneke wrote much the same.

Reporter Dan Claxton made changes to the article, including a statement from the officers’ association that came in after deadline, and explained the sequence of events in a comment of his own.

The exchange will hardly go down as momentous in the history of journalism. I think it’s important, though.

News is not linear. The flow of information moves among many people — sources, readers, journalists — and not one way.

We can see the evolution. Everything is more public. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

What probably won’t change is the tension between sources and reporters about those “wouldn’t respond” or “not available” references.

For example:

Reporter Ayla Kremen is working on an article about lactation rooms at MU .

The election piece was urgent; this one isn’t.

She has had plenty of interviews but is still missing a key player at the MU administration level.

“I’ve been quite the annoying reporter,” Kremen wrote. “Every day I've called once or twice and left phone messages. I've e-mailed once a day and I even dropped by the other day, only to be told that there was nobody there who could talk to me about it at the time.”

She could file the article with a “did not respond” attached to a name. Or she could keep trying — but for how long?

Reporters want the most complete article possible; wouldn’t anyone? But at some point they have to let go and publish what’s available.

If the article publishes without a response, Kremen should say specifically that she tried to reach the official.

Then you won’t be left guessing. You’ll know the effort she made, and you can judge for yourself.

Tom

PS: Thanks to directors Joe Kinney of Heartland Burial and Cremation Society and Bruce Rice of Parker Funeral Service and Crematory for meeting with several editors Thursday morning about Missourian life stories. There were several good ideas, and I appreciate their help.

I’ll let you know as the Missourian makes more changes.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Joy Piazza November 6, 2010 | 10:31 a.m.

What is the point of this article? You never explain how it is that the reporter wrote no one responded, but the sources in question say they were never asked. That's the issue, isn't it? Or are are you implying the sources are being disingenuous in saying they were never asked, thus the example of lactation story source? But you make clear the chief is never shy about voicing his opinion, so why wouldn't he respond if asked...following the logic of the article?

I find readers can count on you to defend every error as "we [readers] just don't understand how journalism is done." I don't find that useful whatsoever. I don't imagine that's a unit in the journalism ethics course: "Week 2: The public just doesn't understand how journalism is done." How about either saying you tried every day to reach the sources (by name) --calls, emails, stopped by --and no one responded, or say "we failed to uphold our ethical credo and our duty to democracy; it was wrong, we promise to do better"? This is how everyone can be accountable, don't you think?

(Report Comment)
Tom Warhover November 7, 2010 | 10:03 a.m.

I'm sorry, Joy, if I wasn't clear. In the first case, with Tom Dresner, the reporter didn't follow up. (Specifically, he used the wrong email address when sending Dresner a request for comment at 8:52 pm Tuesday.) The other comment for the story came at 12:49 am, and wasn't included until later Wednesday morning.

One of the points I had hoped to make is that Mr. Dresner can point out the error in a way that's more public than ever before. He actually did it twice -- once in the comments to the story and again when I quoted him in my letter.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements