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.