No Peeking

It has always been a personal policy of mine never to allow any one to read any writings, or see any artwork, until it is finished. Works in progress are vulnerable to impression. One cannot be subject to a work without reacting to it. That reaction will invariably be interpreted by the author or artist that may affect the final result. If that is the purpose of the piece, or the method, then it’s fine. But if it’s not, the work is tainted; the message, impure.
I equate these things to the dilemma at hand because it is my conviction that a work is not complete until it has fulfilled its purpose. In cases of personal writing and artwork, the purpose is to express oneself. This is complete when the work is complete, even if no one sees it.
Journalistic writing, however, is different in that its function is to inform the public, and journalistic works are not finished until that end is fulfilled. Thus, allowing a source to read the story before the public violates this fundamental rule. At this point, the piece is subject to the reaction of the reader, and is vulnerable to change. If information is crucial to get right, then the info can be verified in another way (this should probably be done with sensitive information anyways). It would certainly be ok to verify quotes. This would give the source some assurance and strengthen your credibility. If the source insisted, then I would have to explain it much the same way I did here, and I would make sure that he was one of the first to receive a copy of that newspaper, but it would be, at best, at the same time as everyone else.
That’s it. No ‘round and ‘round to go. It seems this time we have managed to step outside of the circle.

Full Disclosure

To what end should journalists avoid conflicts of interest? This would really depend on the type of story. A hard news story should be written sans conflicts of interest whenever possible. In which case, I would submit the idea to the story budget, maybe listing myself as a possible source, or simply tip off a fellow journalist.
If the piece were to be done as a soft news story, with an element of human interest, then it might be okay to do the story. In researching human interest pieces, sometimes a journalist becomes involved with the story. Although this involvement isn’t explicitly expressed in the story, it is reflected by the compassion and perspective from which the story is written. Whether or not a connection should be disclosed should be left up to the journalist. I personally don’t feel that disclosure is necessary (in soft news stories) unless it is relevant to the story. In many human interest pieces there is some kind of bias, at least implied; however, after the recent case of Lonelygirl15, I might have to reconsider.
For those that don’t know, Lonelygirl15 is the screen name of a girl featured in a series of short video clips of a likeable teen frolicking about her room doing silly things and sharing her thoughts with the world. The series, which was posted on YouTube.com, became episodic, and many of her followers became suspicious of the girl’s true identity and the purpose of the videos. Many believed a Hollywood conspiracy to be behind it all, perhaps building hype for an upcoming film. Shortly after the theories began, it was revealed that Lonelygirl15 was in fact a 19 year old actress working for an experimental film company that bound her to confidentiality. The series retains a fan base, but many have lost interest.
In following this whole fiasco I realized that audiences generally resent feeling like they have been duped, and disclosing your identity, even if it is not pertinent to your story, may prevent future animosity. And with that, we come full circle.

Don't Kiss, Don't Tell

I would have to consider why the source might want to pull their quotes. Generally speaking, as long as I was clear about my intention, the source would have to give a pretty good reason why I shouldn't quote them. I would politely remind them that the story is going to run regardless, and pulling their information could result in their side not being presented equally. If they could not present a good reason to pull the quotes, I might assume that I did something to lose their trust or confidence and would attempt to regain it, but, ultimately, I would still run with the information.
Of course, this is all on a case by case basis, there are no rules on deciding when to play hard ball. You have to go with your gut. Is it worth jeopardizing your source? Sometimes you have to take that chance. Is it worth compromising your obligation to the public? We can't forget that journalism is a public service, and your integrity as a public servant relies on your commitment to that function. But are you doing the public a better service by pulling quotes, and keeping sources owing you? Perhaps this source could be more lucrative for a future story.
So, the dichotomy between respecting your sources questionable wishes and adhering to the popular demand of full disclosure continues to swirl in the vortex of public interest. In the debate as to whether to allow a source to withdraw quotes after putting them on the record we have gone from no to yes and back to no, and, with that, we have come full circle.

k-