"What would be the harm in letting the company read over the article before publishing?"
I'm not disagreeing with you. I actually think it could sometimes be a good idea, and as you say a 'win-win'. But just from my own knowledge of the publishing industry, though, I haven't seen or heard of it happening very often (particularly when it's the journalist who's the one being approached by the person with a story). I believe many publications have rules about conflict of interest that would not allow a source of a story to check over their own story before publication (even for accuracy's sake), as they would feel that this is the writer's job to do *during* the interview and not afterwards. If the writer, however, was unsure or confused about something before publication, it would then be up to him or her to contact the source of the story and ask more questions. But from my understanding of how magazines and newspapers work, it would not be 'standard' practice for writers to send their work to their sources to check for accuracy, as (to my understanding) it is supposed to be the writer's *job* to get that accuracy during the interview.
