Fair-Response Reporting Rule
Give subjects enough time to answer difficult questions before publication
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 91%
The Fair-Response Reporting Rule turns the right of reply into a substantive verification step rather than a procedural formality. The reporter first identifies the specific claims that require an answer and presents them clearly to the subject. The response window is then calibrated to the number, complexity, and difficulty of those questions instead of being set merely for newsroom convenience. During that period, the subject can provide explanations, documents, corrections, or context. The reporter evaluates this material against existing evidence and revises unsupported or incomplete claims before publication. The mechanism improves both fairness and accuracy: subjects receive a realistic opportunity to answer, while journalists gain evidence that may strengthen, qualify, or disprove the planned story.
Origin
Morgenson developed the rule after serving as Steve Forbes's press secretary and experiencing how difficult it was to answer comprehensive questions within minutes.
Core principles
- 01A meaningful right of reply requires adequate time
- 02Complex allegations deserve specific questions
- 03Fair process improves the credibility of adversarial reporting
- 04Experiencing the subject's position can reveal flaws in reporting practice
How to run it
- 1
Define the claims
List every material allegation, disputed fact, or interpretation on which the subject's response could affect the story. Convert broad accusations into answerable questions.
Pro tip Include enough detail for the subject to identify the underlying event or transaction.
Watch out A generic request for comment does not provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- 2
Assess response complexity
Estimate the research, document retrieval, and internal consultation required to answer the questions responsibly. Distinguish a simple factual confirmation from a multi-part institutional inquiry.
Pro tip Ask how long you would need if required to support every answer with evidence.
Watch out A deadline measured in minutes may be unfair for comprehensive financial or legal questions.
- 3
Set and communicate a fair deadline
Give the subject a response period proportionate to the complexity and clearly state the publication timetable. Provide a reliable channel for questions or partial responses.
Pro tip Send difficult questions as early in the reporting process as practical.
Watch out Do not conceal an artificial deadline merely to say that no response was received.
- 4
Evaluate the response
Check supplied claims and documents against independent evidence. Incorporate valid corrections, relevant context, and meaningful denials without surrendering editorial judgment.
Pro tip Track which passages changed because of the response.
Watch out Fair consideration does not require accepting unsupported assertions.
- 5
Document the process
Preserve the questions, delivery times, deadlines, responses, and follow-up exchanges. Accurately describe unanswered outreach in the published story.
Pro tip Use a standard outreach log for consequential investigations.
Watch out Poor records can make a fair process difficult to demonstrate later.
In the wild
A reporter plans to allege that a company charged fees for services it no longer performed. Instead of requesting comment shortly before publication, the reporter sends the relevant contracts, transaction dates, and five specific questions several days ahead. The company produces evidence that one fee was refunded but cannot justify the others.
→ The story corrects one claim, retains the supported findings, and explains the company's response accurately.
Common mistakes
Sending questions at the last minute
A short deadline can make a technically valid request for comment functionally meaningless, especially when records or specialist review are required.
Asking vague questions
Subjects cannot respond effectively when they are not told which transactions, statements, or allegations are at issue.
Ignoring inconvenient corrections
The purpose of the response is verification, not theater. Valid evidence must change the story even when it weakens the original thesis.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for investigative journalists preparing stories containing detailed allegations or consequential criticism.
Not ideal for
It is not appropriate when delay would create an immediate safety risk or enable evidence destruction.
From the transcript
“I really after that decided that I really wanted to give people a lot more time to respond to my questions.”
“I'm going to give everybody that I'm writing about more time to respond because I don't want to be in that put them in the…”
From the episode
Gretchen Morgenson: From Wall Street to Journalism
Gretchen Morgenson