There is a
foolproof method followed by many of us these days -- it's
"playback for fact-check" -- we send the final copy for approval to the
interviewee to avoid any discrepancies due to misinterpretation.
i wouldn't say its foolproof as at times the article MAY even after
approval by the interviewee goes back to the uber editor and last
minute ``unfortunate space saving cuts" end up being made :-) At times
important content may end up get mangled or skipped in the process.
Frankly, we freelancers have a bit of power in our hands in that respect --
to say "NO!" We may not be able to avoid such cuts by the uber-editor. But
when that happens, we can always go back to the editor and say, "Next time
you do that, I won't write for you!" Or, where we think that won't have any
effect, just ignore the publication. I might not be a *big* writer and my
cold shoulder might not even be noticed, but at least, as a writer, I have
the satisfaction of ensuring quality.
One publication I stopped writing for (because they randomly snipped
paras -- I waited till two such instances, to give them the benefit of
doubt) although the name would have looked good in my resume, is The Hindu.
And one publication where I've not had that problem with is Linux For You
and its sister publications -- they've (almost) always cooperated and sent
me the final draft for checking (post editing) -- so there aren't any rude
surprises when I see the work in print!
And frankly, the interviewees also have a role to play here. Every time they
find a misinterpretation by the author, they *must* write to the editors and
bring it to their notice -- because, whether it was the author's mistake or
the editor's random editing, they will at least know that
interviewees/readers object to such practices!
It's like the choice between FOSS and proprietory. Here, it's a choice
between quality and money/reputation.