Many of my tweeps this morning had questions (here's one from Kady O'Malley) about the story that is leading A1 in many of our newspapers. As I'm all about transparency — as much as I'm able — I'll try to provide some context:
This is a story we've been working on for more than a week, trying to pin it down from several sources, who declined to be identified for a variety of reasons that we believe to be legitimate requests for anonymity. It's my experience, after working in three newsrooms on Parliament Hill, that these reasons are broadly accepted reasons for granting anonymity by most Parliament Hill journalists.
Late yesterday, an early incomplete draft of the story was accidentally posted online at some our online properties. The complete version is the one that is now online and is in many of our papers. Chalk the mixup to me — the new guy in the chain who had an incomplete understanding of our copy flows to dozens and dozens of our papers and all of their related online properties. (Betcha didn't know that the combined circulation of our papers is more than 6 million. It's a big complicated outfit here!)
So: The difference between the incomplete draft that made it online and the final version? There are precisely two:
– A quote was removed that, upon subsequent double-checks with all our sources, seemed to be more spin than fact.
– We added a line to note that Mme Jean had nothing to do with Lafond's request. We felt that was an important point that, again, was made by several sources.
The bottom line to the story — that Lafond asked that the Queen not stay at Rideau Hall — was unchanged.
Journalists will recognize these kinds of changes as routine tweeks that often happen as a story develops and works its way through several editors.
So that's the how this sausage was made on this one.
What gets to me about this story is that nowhere does it mention why Lafond would make such a request. Before making scandal-worhty headlines, , my guess is it would be important to know Lafond side's of the story. Twit or wanker he may be, basic journalism principles say you need word from him until you go out with accusations.
Basic journalism principles say that David must give Lafond an opportunity to respond to the allegation. If Lafond chooses not to respond, that's his problem.
But it is troubling that the version of the story I saw mentioned nothing about attempts to reach him.
Well, I think we now know why Akin was fired from CTV, don't we? Report first, verify later.
Yes and now he's with reactionary central. he and Kory will be spinning and producing more garbage than one could store in a toxic waste dump