It may just be timing, but in recent weeks there seems to be a greater emphasis and response (reporters and photographers) to breaking police and fire events in the Flint Journal.
This is a good thing.
The articles are posted quickly on the paper's web page, often with photos, it's a step in the right direction. Actually, it's a step back to what we always were.
Get a reporter back into the courtroom for some dramatic courtroom coverage and that would be even better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the time I've been a reporter, I've so far learned one incontrovertible fact (at least, from my viewpoint) of crime reporting: if a police officer tells you something needs to be off the record, then you honor it.
I'm sure there are ways to work the system, but until I get to where I have a trusted source who will give me things he or she ordinarily would not give to other reporters, I'd rather play it safe.
Most recently, a particular drug bust took place somewhere in Michigan. The police officer asked me to hold off on a story until the investigation was done, fearing that publicity would hurt the case. Right now, I'm respecting their wishes.
While working for a south Dallas County newspaper, I dealt with a story of a bank robbery. This is always fun to cover, since bank robberies are a federal issue. The FBI agent I spoke to specifically asked me to keep two aspects of the robbery out of print. I honored that while the rival paper printed both. Yeah, it stunk to be scooped, but I'd rather be on the police's good side.
One thing I learned, not by doing but by watching others do, is that you only get to burn a source once.
Print something they ask you not to and there's a good chance you will never get information from the source again.
I've seen newspaper and broadcast reporters burn sources to the point they literally had to find a new job out of town to keep on reporting because no one here would talk to them anymore.
Never pays to burn a source or go back on your word.
Post a Comment