Do you know who wrote this editorial? It is an Athabasca Advocate writer. Maybe some readers could guess who it is. But only those who witnessed its creation can know for certain.
When someone writes the prime minister an email, a reply might have Justin Trudeau’s signature at the bottom. But it’s possible – and even likely – it was penned by a communications officer on his behalf.
This is why the journalism industry discourages emailed responses to questions. It is why it is a common practice to specify when something was said via email.
Polished, prepared and revised responses destroy transparency in an industry that strives to provide the public with verified facts.
They also present logistical challenges to journalists by making a long, drawn-out thread out of asking important follow-up questions, clarifying points or keeping a conversation on-track. People often give important bits of information when having a conversation that would be edited out of an email response.
And really, copy and pasted responses sound awfully stilted in print.
The United States’ Poynter Institute reported in 2013 that several American journalism schools banned email interviews unless they were absolutely necessary. Some Canadian schools also have that policy.
The reason for this is not, as one councillor suggested to an Advocate journalist, because reporters do not want a real record of what their sources said.
Most people use recording devices nowadays anyways, and interviews are stored digitally in case someone wants to dispute a quote.
Elected officials in Athabasca County and the Town of Athabasca have in the past refused to speak with local media, typing out emailed responses when they see fit. This paper has frequently accepted them.
Coming up to a municipal election, it is worth it for the public to consider which politicians have often stood in the way of transparency. They are easy to spot. Just look for the words, “said in an email response.”
