They may well say not only is this not true, but I will put in an injunction to prevent publication. No, stories don't go in unless I'm convinced by the people who write them that they're true. And if I'm wrong, then so be it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are some people who believe that these are not real stories with real people, but they actually are.
Being in the public eye, I have certainly gone through the tabloid situation where they come out with stories that are not true. I don't read or pay attention to it.
I think you tell the story that has to be told. You tell the story that's the truth. You tell the story that readers will be interested in and should know about.
My sense is that, when you look at what people such as former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said over the years, you don't go with a story unless you have two independent sources to confirm it.
My inclination, as an old-school, classically trained journalist, is not to go with a story unless I have it hard. It's not good enough to say something based on rumors that were flying around.
Truth is stranger than nonfiction. And life is too interesting to be left to journalists. People have stories, but journalists have 'takes,' and it's their takes that usually win out when the stories are too complicated or, as happens, not complicated enough.
If they're going to write a story they're going to write the story whether it's true or not.
Even though writing articles relies completely on truth, you still must tell an interesting story. You can't worry about people knowing who you are and whether or not they want to read your stories.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know this: we need to protect our ability to tell controversial stories.
My stories are full of facts; they have a beginning and an end. For that reason, they will never... occupy a place in contemporary literature.