SO, ANDY REID AND his wife spoke to Philadelphia Magazine about their troubled family (You remember their sons, right? They made front page news when they were busted with guns and drugs.).The mag has been receiving a lot of hype - the Reid's haven't spoken about their family with any other media.
"These parents have been dealing with it for five years, trying whatever seemed to make sense to help," said Robert Huber, the author of the Philly mag piece.
Getting the article came with caveats, however. First, the Reid's had their attorney present during the two hour interview with Huber. Second, the Reid's were allowed to read the story and make changes before it went to press. Third, the magazine had to make a donation of an unspecified amount to a charity of the Reid's choice.
Was this an ethical thing to do? Rarely do journalists run their stories by the subjects before publication. And journalists are not supposed to pay for stories (that falls under pandering).
Did Philadelphia Magazine do anything wrong, or did they simply do what they had to to get the story that everyone wants?
4 comments:
As long as they ite that it has been read over by the subject and things like that, then its all good.
If the story is then the approved Andy Reid version of events, how is it any different from a publication put out by the Eagles? With the Reid family (and lawyers) censoring the story, can you trust that the full story will be revealed?
Or is the information compromised by the fact that the Reid's won't want some information to be revealed? Can the journalist actually be comprehensive under these circumstances?
Did Philly mag sell out to the Eagles because they think the audience is so enamored with the Eagles that they will read the story despite the censorship?
By the way, on the print version of the story, the author's name is nowhere to be found on the story. I can guarantee that is not an accident.
- George (the teacher)
I think that if the interview could not be done on the terms of any other interview, it should not be done. What was the point of it anyway. It was basically just a story told by the Reids, how they wanted to readers to perceive their family and the situation. As far as I am concerned, no interview was conducted.
Andy Reid and his wife were not going to do this story if it wasnt on their terms. Philly MAg. knew that and they did what they had to do to get the biggest non-sports story in philly sports(if that makes sense) since TO's dramatic exit. Katherine makes an extremely good point b/c this was pretty much just the Reids telling the journalist what they wanted to see published, which is not an interview. I still think it's surprising that they did come out and allowed this article to be written, i was expecting Andy Reid to never officially address this.
Post a Comment