The anti-war rally that drew about 100 protesters to Lexington’s Triangle Park yesterday also had a lone counter-protester, who used a bullhorn to occasionally taunt the crowd and recite a list of battles from the Revolutionary War to Iraq. He later e-mailed newspaper editors to complain that the reporter wouldn’t interview him after he declined to identify himself. That, he said, was evidence of "bias," or the reporter having an "agenda."
Reporter Andy Mead mentioned the counter-protester in his story. But he didn’t interview the man because he knew that any quotes he gathered would not be published. Why? Because the Herald-Leader has a "bias" against publishing information without giving readers the source, by name.
We occasionally publish wire stories from elsewhere that attribute information to unidentified sources. Most of those come from Washington, where officials are notoriously reluctant to attach their names to information — sometimes for good reasons, often not.
But for staff-written copy, the Herald-Leader requires full disclosure of the source of information or quotations. There are exceptions, such as some situations when full identification would identify a victim of sexual abuse. But those exceptions are rare. That’s because we think readers are better served when they know exactly where information is coming from and whom is being quoted. Only then can readers make good decisions about whether information is credible.
Tom Eblen
Managing Editor
In your response to a reader comment concerning “Sometimes we fall short,” you began by correcting the use of “censure” rather than “censor.” In that spirit, please note that you should have said “who is being quoted”, not “whom is being quoted.”
Also, today’s front-page story on jockey insurance referred to “last rights” instead of “last rites.” I wouldn’t take the time to point out these errors if you hadn’t gone out of your way to correct a reader’s e-mail. When you edit your front page properly, you’ll be in better shape to be dismissive of your readers.
Tom, I once berated you about a story, then had to apologize later for being so caustic. As mentioned elsewhere in theses blogs, we have nine thousand editors out there.
Thing is, you cannot spend 80 percent of your time on 20 percent of the business; if you have errors, sometimes that is a s good as it gets. We all want perfection, but hindisight being what it is, I think you all are doing pretty well. Good luck with the D.C. thing, too.