Identifiable sources separate news, gossip
Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2010
When does a story become news?
If your hairstylist tells you something, is that news? What if you overhear it in the grocery store aisle?
If it’s posted on Facebook, or mentioned in a blog, is that news?
In this ever-changing, fast-paced media world, “news” seems to be constantly redefined.
These days it is common for what might be termed nontraditional news sources to break stories that end up being big news.
A good example would be The National Enquirer breaking the story about Sen. John Edwards admitting he fathered a child with a mistress. They published the story before any other media. Turns out they were not only first, but they were right — something that doesn’t always happen.
The publication has settled a fair number of lawsuits in the past for publishing false, unsubstantiated information, but it hasn’t stopped them. Their stock and trade are rumor, innuendo and unidentified sources.
It’s not unlike a discussion I once had about high scorers in the game of basketball: You have to look at percentages. A high score doesn’t always mean the players are better shooters — just that they have the opportunity to take more shots.
The Enquirer takes enough shots that they are bound to hit one occasionally.
Years ago I worked on some long-term projects with middle school and junior high school students interested in journalism careers. In every instance there were students who were interested in writing “gossip columns” for the school papers.
They wanted to identify who was “going with” whom and new breakups (with full details) in the tween population. With the teachers standing firmly behind me I had to make it clear to them that gossip was not the same thing as news. (Not to mention the relationships at that age change almost hourly.)
I now repeat that information.
Gossip is not news. Unsubstantiated rumors are one step above gossip. The Enterprise doesn’t print either — for a number of reasons.
Specifically, we do not use unnamed or unidentified sources. We believe our readers have a right to know where we got our information and that person’s relationship to the story.
If we, for example, were going to run a story about a shortage of frozen waffles, we’d want to make sure you knew that information included facts about the shortage and came from the manufacturer — not a grocery store operator who simply ordered too many waffles and was running them on sale.
Studies have shown that readers expect to know the source of their news. Reliable and respected news sources who have earned the right to the public trust don’t use unnamed sources because they want to continue to be trusted.
Even if unnamed sources end up being correct, we know they sound like we made them up and that they have something to hide. We don’t print information from people we think have something to hide.
Our newspaper code of ethics and principles specifies: “Sources of information should be clearly identified in the newspaper. Unnamed, unidentified and/or unattributed sources of information undermine The Enterprise’s credibility. Anonymous sources should be used only under extraordinary circumstances and only to express fact, not opinion. We should consider a source’s possible motives and agenda in providing us information. Offers of confidentiality, as well as the use of information obtained through such offers, require the approval of the editor.”
When we have strong knowledge that something is happening, but we cannot obtain official verification from anybody in authority, we hold the story. We do not run unverified information or information from anonymous sources.
A few times in my tenure that means we haven’t been first with a big, breaking news story.
But there’s a saying in serious journalism circles, and it’s one we live by. “Best to be first. Better to be right.”
•
Now that I’ve lauded our efforts to make sure we get the news right, I will acknowledge the fact we all recognize: We still make mistakes.
More than one reader has called to complain about an error and encourage us to “fire our proofreaders.” Problem is, we haven’t employed proofreaders in decades. We continue to try to deliver a mistake-proof paper and plainly point out when we fail to meet that goal.
In an effort to make sure we run the complete “Today in History,” so popular with our readers, those corrections will, on most days, move from page 2A to page 3A, prominently displayed, and reflecting our red faces.
When does a story become news?
If your hairstylist tells you something, is that news? What if you overhear it in the grocery store aisle?
If it’s posted on Facebook, or mentioned in a blog, is that news?
In this ever-changing, fast-paced media world, “news” seems to be constantly redefined.
These days it is common for what might be termed nontraditional news sources to break stories that end up being big news.
A good example would be The National Enquirer breaking the story about Sen. John Edwards admitting he fathered a child with a mistress. They published the story before any other media. Turns out they were not only first, but they were right — something that doesn’t always happen.
The publication has settled a fair number of lawsuits in the past for publishing false, unsubstantiated information, but it hasn’t stopped them. Their stock and trade are rumor, innuendo and unidentified sources.
It’s not unlike a discussion I once had about high scorers in the game of basketball: You have to look at percentages. A high score doesn’t always mean the players are better shooters — just that they have the opportunity to take more shots.
The Enquirer takes enough shots that they are bound to hit one occasionally.
Years ago I worked on some long-term projects with middle school and junior high school students interested in journalism careers. In every instance there were students who were interested in writing “gossip columns” for the school papers.
They wanted to identify who was “going with” whom and new breakups (with full details) in the tween population. With the teachers standing firmly behind me I had to make it clear to them that gossip was not the same thing as news. (Not to mention the relationships at that age change almost hourly.)
I now repeat that information.
Gossip is not news. Unsubstantiated rumors are one step above gossip. The Enterprise doesn’t print either — for a number of reasons.
Specifically, we do not use unnamed or unidentified sources. We believe our readers have a right to know where we got our information and that person’s relationship to the story.
If we, for example, were going to run a story about a shortage of frozen waffles, we’d want to make sure you knew that information included facts about the shortage and came from the manufacturer — not a grocery store operator who simply ordered too many waffles and was running them on sale.
Studies have shown that readers expect to know the source of their news. Reliable and respected news sources who have earned the right to the public trust don’t use unnamed sources because they want to continue to be trusted.
Even if unnamed sources end up being correct, we know they sound like we made them up and that they have something to hide. We don’t print information from people we think have something to hide.
Our newspaper code of ethics and principles specifies: “Sources of information should be clearly identified in the newspaper. Unnamed, unidentified and/or unattributed sources of information undermine The Enterprise’s credibility. Anonymous sources should be used only under extraordinary circumstances and only to express fact, not opinion. We should consider a source’s possible motives and agenda in providing us information. Offers of confidentiality, as well as the use of information obtained through such offers, require the approval of the editor.”
When we have strong knowledge that something is happening, but we cannot obtain official verification from anybody in authority, we hold the story. We do not run unverified information or information from anonymous sources.
A few times in my tenure that means we haven’t been first with a big, breaking news story.
But there’s a saying in serious journalism circles, and it’s one we live by. “Best to be first. Better to be right.”
•
Now that I’ve lauded our efforts to make sure we get the news right, I will acknowledge the fact we all recognize: We still make mistakes.
More than one reader has called to complain about an error and encourage us to “fire our proofreaders.” Problem is, we haven’t employed proofreaders in decades. We continue to try to deliver a mistake-proof paper and plainly point out when we fail to meet that goal.
In an effort to make sure we run the complete “Today in History,” so popular with our readers, those corrections will, on most days, move from page 2A to page 3A, prominently displayed, and reflecting our red faces.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 12:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home