NewsFetch Headlines:
Click headline for full story

Honesty & Crushpad’s “Closing” Vs. “Imminent Closing” Controversy

I left a shorter version of this a few minutes ago on Steve Heimoff’s blog (So what’s really going on with Crushpad?). Hope it offers a valid data point.

I love Crushpad. It’s been a great business for many people. I do hope Crushpad survives because its failure would affect so many good, gifted, talented people.

My only issue here: I sent Peter Ekman a draft of the article. I asked him for comment. He read the draft.

He emailed me back a vague “this story is inaccurate” but did NOT dispute the “closing” part. Or tell me what was inaccurate.

Over the years, I have heard that same line over and over … from the reporting I have done on Cosentino, Ascentia and others. Hell, I heard that from former members of the Nixon Administration when I was a Washington correspondent.

Had Ekman simply said, “no we are not closing. We are re-structuring.” The article and headline would have been different.

Yes, there is a difference between “Is Closing” and “is close to closing,” but nothing that Ekman or the many other sources I talked to ever drew that distinction.

Ekman had the draft in his hands. Had the power to correct it immediately and before publication. And did not do that.

Had Peter Ekman been forthcoming, the tone and content of the article would have been different.

But no matter how a journalist tries to be accurate and complete, much responsibility lies in the lands of those directly involved. A journalist is only as good as his/her sources … but when it turns out that you cannot trust source #1 — the CEO of the company being written about — then everybody suffers.

Regardless, the UNdisputed fact is that they are in danger of closing, will “wind down” if financing is not found, and are scrambling to get other companies to take over some contracts.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Comments

2 Responses to Honesty & Crushpad’s “Closing” Vs. “Imminent Closing” Controversy

  1. Alexie

    Why do you allow interviewees the right to change the story? Out of interest, isn’t that against most newspaper guidelines?

  2. I allow them to add their own information and comments…to tell their side of the story. That doesn’t mean that I delete other information or sources.

    Yes, allowing someone to see a draft of an upcoming article is not standard, but is an additional step toward fairness without jeopardizing the substance of the article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>