Even when news is shared firsthand, it's good to check with a second source. (Photo by Leann Ray/West Virginia Watch)
Writing is much more than putting pen to paper; so is publishing. And the first doesn’t guarantee the second. But one can hope.
After doing the first since I was a child and enjoying the fruits of the second for more than a few decades, I learned a valuable lesson a few weeks ago when I submitted a piece to West Virginia Watch for their consideration. And just when I began to think that I’ve been a writer for long enough to make certain that my i’s were dotted and my t’s crossed, I found myself in uncharted territory. Surprised? Yes. And grateful that Leann Ray, editor-in-chief, stopped the presses to ask a few questions that not only mattered to the story but, in the end, protected me and a reputation for accuracy in reporting that allows me a level of credibility with various newspaper editors who have published my commentaries for many years.
Knowing that had the piece been published prior to checking to make certain that the story that was told to me (a first-hand account) was, in fact, correct would have revealed an untruth. And as with writers of commentary, reporters, the truth matters. In fact, without it trust erodes. And of course, we’ve all, unfortunately, known the perils that come with that journey.
The individual who provided the information to me was correct in their reporting of the facts at that moment. Once I wrote and submitted the piece for consideration, the facts changed during West Virginia Watch’s process of confirming the facts. It wasn’t until a piece was published in another outlet right before my piece was to appear online that the truth was revealed, which negated my piece.
It gets better. When I asked why this new information was not shared with me, I received an apology, saying that they should have let me know. And therein lies a valuable listen — not just for me as a writer, but for editors as well. Even when news is shared firsthand, we need to breathe and recheck and wait and then proceed — still with caution.
Writing is what I do. In works of fiction, while I might draw from personal experience, I add a large measure of imagination. The same with poetry. And with nonfiction, I research for the facts, the figures that are provided by those much smarter than I am.
In my recent spiritual memoir, I wrote the truth of my spiritual journey. These truths are indisputable. What happened a few weeks ago was a reporting of someone’s truth, which would have been detrimental to their future. When they realized that it turned around in their favor and chose to not let me know, they set in motion information that would have questioned my credibility as an opinion writer and that of my editor who is well-respected in her field.
The identity of this individual is irrelevant, very much like my decision to not name specific parishes or priests in my spiritual memoir. It’s irrelevant. What is relevant in both cases is the core of the message. And the core of this message is clear: be careful, writers and editors. If we care about the truth in reporting, in commentary, check and check again before pressing that submit button. It’s not a small thing. In fact, it’s the only thing that matters, because once it’s out there, it’s out there. Retractions seldom reach the same audience. And that is a problem.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.
Courtesy of West Virginia Watch
