Would you have edited this part out of our first episode?

Welcome to the inaugural Question Everything newsletter! I’ve never written a newsletter before, and I want to figure out ways to use it beyond just sharing links to stuff I’m reading. One thing I want to try is to get your take on the editorial and ethical conundrums journalists face every day. So here’s one, from our first episode, “The Critic” (which is available now on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts [[spoken quickly!!]])

In this episode, I have a conversation with an Australian journalist named Gay Alcorn. In 2017, Gay wrote a column criticizing my podcast, S-Town, as “morally indefensible”. When we were making this episode, my team and I did something I don’t think I’ve ever done before, in 15 years as a journalist. We sent Gay a full draft of the episode to listen to before we aired it.

Most journalists, myself included, don’t usually do this, because it’s important to maintain independent control over a story. (I should say most U.S.-based journalists – I discovered firsthand recently that the practices around this are very different in Europe, which we may do a story about in a future episode of the show.)

But with “The Critic”, my team and I found ourselves in a unique situation. The conversation Gay and I had ended up, in large part, being an interview she did of me. But it was for my show. So I found myself in the position of editing a critical interview that another journalist did of me for a program that I’m producing and have editorial control over. That could affect the final product. I had editors and producers and a fact-checker working with me on the story, but just to be sure I was being fair to Gay and accurately representing her point of view, our executive producer sent her a rough mix of the story before we released it. We asked her to let us know if she felt we were misrepresenting her, or my conversation with her, in any substantial way. Here’s what she wrote back (Gay said it was ok to share this btw):

The email we received from Gay. The sender was Gay Alcorn, and the recipient was Robyn Semien. It was sent on August 23. Subject: Re: updates on the podcast segment with you and Brian. The email reads: Hi Robyn, I was nervous listening to this! You've done a great job in encapsulating the key issues, and it's well edited and it doesn't flinch. I kept listening for key debates and they were there. My heart sunk with the gambling story, but there you go. I am determined now to contact that family again - I think I was just nervous that they would deeply regret it. There was only one little thing that I wish was in there - maybe it didn't work. But it was when I asked Brian why he just kept the tape running when John died and when he spoke teo Tyler - was there any ever time he was not recording? The podcast says that Brian had lost contact with John, and the implication was that there was unlikely to be a story. But he tapes when the woman calls him to say John was dead, then goes into the studio to talk to Tyler. That's it really. Not essential, but I thought that question was worth raising. Again, it may not have worked. Well done. I did not know it was going to feature me so fully, but that's OK. See you, Gay

As you can see, Gay approved of the way we edited and presented the conversation. But…we cut a two and a half hour interview down to 30 minutes or so, which obviously meant lots of stuff was left out, including the “one little thing” Gay said she missed. I want to share that part here with you, and ask: If you were editing this interview, would you have included this part, or left it out?

It happened early in my conversation with Gay. One of the first things she asked was: in S-Town, when I learned that John had killed himself, why was I recording the phone call in which a woman I knew in John’s area told me the news.

Click here to listen to the interview clip that Gay thought we should've included.

You can find a transcript of this clip here.