How much say do journalists have about what they reveal and when? What do journalists have to reveal to their supervisors or editors of what they have uncovered ? I’ve had the feeling for a very long time that journalists (full-time employed ones that is) treat their knowledge like a commodity. I have no problem with journalists writing books or memoirs, but are they skimping on facts that perhaps they would rather use for more profitable ventures like books? Bob Woodward sat on information for months but he is more of a freelancer.
If a source says, “I will only talk with these specific restrictions in place” and the reporter breaks his promise, word gets out and that reporter’s career is toast.
Yes that’s true. But I’m really taking about is journalists who have the option to reveal all now or wait for a more lucrative opportunity. How much plays into what journalists reveal if they have an option?
I might be completely wrong , but it is my impression that most journalists employed by a specific entity will have an editor who knows at least generally what they are working on. And if a NYT reporter ( for example) left a lot of information out of his articles that later appeared in a book, I suspect that reporter would need to find a new job and would have difficulty doing so.
Newspaper reporters covering a presidential campaign, for example, write books afterwards all the time that are full of details that never got into the paper.
Reporting is competitive in real time as far as getting important stuff published first. Reporters and editors want bragging rights in the here and now. that’s how they make a name for themselves in the business.
What the exact customs and what the discussions (or lack thereof) between an editor and a reporter for how much goes in the paper and what stays on the computer to use in the book, I dunno.
But yeah, what @doreen said.
also a conversation that happened that might of not meant much in 2020 and might have not gotten in the paper/mag at the time could have importance 5 years later
He was specifically working on a book so I don’t see a conflict.
One would imagine that any employer of a journalist would be unhappy if information gathered in the time of paid employment was kept quiet, especially if there was an overt intent to keep the information for private profit in the future. I can’t see any protections just because it is journalism. Indeed most protections for journalists are in place in terms of their employment in a publisher - it is the newspaper/media that is the fourth estate, not its individual employees. A freelancer would be bound by the terms of their contract.
When it comes down to decisions of breaking confidentiality or “off the record” information, that call comes down to the editor, not the journalist. It will be the paper that takes the most heat. Any politician that thinks that “off the record” is some sort of iron clad guarantee should not be in the game. A journalist or editor that breaks an off-the-record assurance is just doing their job. The individual that asked for an off-the-record deal has to cope with the fact that they crossed the line, not the journalist. They may elect to never trust that journalist again, but that is their call. Why did they divulge information in such circumstances? It was their call to do so. Usually it is done for a specific reason, often one that is of benefit to the one doing the divulging. The rules have been known for decades. If the information is worth more than the ongoing relationship, it gets published. Not to do so makes the nature of journalism beholden to those that want to pick and choose the information that gets published for their own ends. That would be a very bad outcome.
Eric Wemple, op-edder at Washington Post and thus a colleague of Woodward, has some degree on an “insider view” of this. He discusses exactly these and related questions, in particular about Woodward and this book, just yesterday (Sept. 10):
He touches on all these questions: What Woodward might have “owed” the public and/or his editor; what is best held up for a future book vs. what should be reported promptly in a news article; and the need to re-contact all your sources for permission if you plan to publish their interviews in a way different than you originally promised them.