I think Matt misunderstands my point on beat sweeteners. The disagreement is not over whether news articles meant to secure future access to sources would be a bad thing if they existed. They’d be wildly unethical. The question is whether they exist. Do reporters actually say, either to themselves or their editors, that I am going to profile subject “X” not because subject “X” has intrinsic value or is of interest to my audience, but because, later on, subject “X” might speak to me for other stories?
Maybe they do. I’m more skeptical. And I think this conversation could be improved by becoming more concrete. Which articles are beat sweeteners? And should they, or should they not, run?
