Every once in a while, a temptation comes along . . . it’s 9:00 at night (or later) and a reporter calls to find out what happened at the meeting I was at for the last 3.5 hours. They weren’t at the meeting and they’re calling anyone who will pick up the phone to find out what happened. And trust me, not a lot of people want to pick up the phone after a 3.5 hour long meeting. Dinner, maybe a drink, but talking to a reporter doesn’t really sound like what a normal person would do after an 8 hour work day followed by a long meeting. Chances are pretty great, depending upon the meeting, I may end up being the only source (who may or may not appear in the story) that was actually at the meeting. So, what if . . . I just started making things up?
Ok, I wouldn’t really do it . . . as tempting as it would be.
Here’s the real problem. The next morning, when I read the story, or later that night when I hear the story on the news, at least I can judge if what I said got appropriately translated and reflects what happened at the meeting. (Tho, I can’t do anything about it if it doesn’t.) However, if you weren’t there, you’ll never know. Then, I think about all the stories I read in the paper, and I wonder, was the reporter even at the meeting or event? If not, who was the source? What motivated the source to tell the reporter what they told them?
I suppose I can understand. The newspapers/tv stations/radio stations don’t want to have their reporter sitting through a 3.5 hour meeting. The reporter doesn’t want to waste time waiting for the item of interest to come up. If you have sources you can rely on – it’s a shortcut, which I can understand, but it just doesn’t seem right. Seems like alot of room for error or abuse. There has to be a better way to get our “news”, doesn’t there?
