Thread by @antonioregalado

There's a vast debate on Twitter over whether scientists should make participation in interviews with journalists conditional on being able to review their quotes, facts.

I personally don't have a problem with this request. (1/3)

Things work out better when there's time and opportunity to check facts and make sure things got expressed clearly, and push back against whatever angle or spin the reporter may be adding.

Scientists: you *can* ask to see quotes + facts (2/3)

That's not to say journalists will agree or that they should give the source veto power.

tricky part is the difference between "checking" quotes, which seems OK, and "approving" quotes, which is something most reporters don't want to agree to? (3/4)

One solution that I use more and more is to quote things people previously said. There are so many videos, podcasts, and documents out there now.

I will interview someone at length, but quote what's already on the record somewhere else. (4/4)

(PS) The debate apparently started here with this poll

https://twitter.com/kylejasmin/status/960065733551181824

Covered here by Undark magazine
undark.org/article/scienc…