Editors have a duty of care to the writers they commission – especially in the age of clickbait
It’s our priority to make sure a writer’s argument makes sense, and to choose a headline that fairly reflects the point of view they’re representing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.There are too many examples to count of articles creating so much backlash that writers have had to flee social media as a result.
In some cases the alarm and outrage has been warranted: when a piece directly attacks a group of people for no reason, or promotes violence, it can be helpful when people rally to point out the dangerous repercussions of baseless, provocative takes.
Raheem Sterling’s criticism of journalists relying on racist stereotypes in order to promote stories is perhaps the most high profile example of effective challenges against the media in recent months. But increasingly, readers are turning to editors specifically, for answers.
Take The Cut’s ill-fated piece on Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas’s marriage, for example. Along with the accusation that Chopra was a “scam artist” for being lucky enough to bag a Jonas brother (of all people), rather than solely criticising the writer of the article, people quickly pointed out that this was just as much of an error on the editor’s part.
“How had this article, riddled with sexist and prejudiced assumptions and rumours, been published without question?” People wondered on social media.
Which brings me to my central point. When it comes to (in my case) opinion articles, even though we’re representing someone else’s point of view, it’s imperative that editors keep the strength of the claims made by said writer, and by extension, the wellbeing of the writer, firmly in mind when dealing with a piece. Especially when tackling a sensitive subject.
And that doesn’t mean censoring someone’s views, or prioritising political correctness over traffic for fear of a few people disagreeing online, it means finding a way to present the best version of someone’s work that you can, without relying on cheap gimmicks to do so.
It’s our priority to make sure a writer’s argument makes sense, and to choose a headline that fairly reflects the point of view they’re representing. When we fail to do that, we risk leaving people who have trusted us with their work vulnerable to attack.
Yours,
Kuba Shand-Baptiste
Voices commissioning editor
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments