In my journalistic upbringing, I was taught it’s wrong to share my work with my sources. It makes journalists look less credible in the eyes of the readers because it allows sources to make judgment calls on stories and possibly sway results.

I was relieved when I learned the communigator had a different policy. My editor told us they preferred to have the sources from the stories look over the articles to fact-check. With the spring issue going to print at the beginning of this week, I e-mailed Anne Hull the article I wrote about her visit to UF (“An e-mail brightens a stressful day”), and she got back to me within a couple days. Her feedback was nothing major, but she did mention a few minor things that could be adjusted to make her meaning clearer.

As an ethical journalist, I wouldn’t have taken her advice if I didn’t think she was right. Her small changes make a big difference in the sense of clarity. Most importantly, I know she gave me a disinterested response.

As long as the process of sources reviewing stories is kept strictly to fact-checking, it’s not only acceptable but necessary. Accuracy means even more to journalists’ credibility. Not every story needs to be fact-checked in this way, but the longer ones that have a little time before they’re published should get the sources to look it over.

Journalists should use good judgement in how their sources respond. In my situation, Hull is a Pulitzer-winning journalist. As a professional, I know her feedback is only for clarity. Obviously if journalists write stories with negative slants, they’ll be less inclined to send it off to their sources for feedback. If they’re positive stories, why not build more trusting relationships with your sources by checking that you have everything right?

This semester, my editing professor gave me a great piece of advice:

The more eyes you get on something, the better.