As someone who worked as a newspaper copy editor for the first third of my career, "assume that the author is lying to you" was the entire job.
A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.
A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.
I think this is the thing people are missing the most. Libel is an incredibly serious thing to do. Misstating a fact is a faux pas and a bad look but misquoting someone, especially if that article is taken as a hit piece, can cost hundreds of thousands or millions.
> A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.
It didn't. At worst, it exposed the publisher. And the publisher would have the defense that they had the right policies in place and that the misconduct lies with the journalist. Unless it could be shown that you knew about potential issues and still went through with it for political or financial gain, it's a nothingburger.
It doesn't have to be adversarial. The things you're describing as part of the job are the things I did to prove that the reporter was doing their job. So was building a relationship with reporters that shared the load of documenting what's verified and how it's verified, so we could both trust that we were each doing our jobs correctly.
> > A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.
> It didn't.
Aside from the bald-faced arrogance of telling me what did or didn't happen to me, my lawyer, their lawyer, and my publisher's lawyer all sure didn't agree with you. Fortunately for me, you weren't involved in it.