Journalism of Verification

"Remember, son, many a good story has been ruined by over-verification."


This famous quote was said by James Gordon Bennett, the founder, editor and publisher of the New York Herald. However, is there any truth to it? Are stories sometimes ruined because the journalist made sure all the facts were correct?


A story may be more interesting if certain facts are left out, or added for that matter. But then, as this comes to light, the legitimacy of journalist will likely go down the drain.


So, as group four mentioned, "the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification." Even if a story is less interesting because of it, in the long run, the journalist and the citizens of the community will benefit more from a well-written and verified story than one that is sloppily thrown together.


There are four areas that were discussed last week; Transparency, Anonymous Sources, Accuracy Checklist, and Verification. All of these topics are essential to ensuring journalism of verification.


Transparency


When writing a story, it's important for the journalist to recognize that most of those reading it will likely have no background on what's going on. Because of this, it is important to make the article as transparent as possible. While a well-written article may inspire a reader to seek out more information online, it shouldn't be so vague that the reader has to search for information just to understand the situation. However, there needs to be a balance between too little and too much information. For the most part, I doubt most people are going to want every single detail. This would be far too arduous for a reporter to do as well. Part of transparency is evaluating what information is pertinent for the public to know. Journalists have to step outside their way of thinking and try and understand the viewpoint of those reading the article.


Anonymous Sources


For the most part, it is best for journalists to avoid anonymous sources. one of the biggest reasons is because there is no real way of verifiying that the "anonymous source" is actually a person, or if the journalist was just making up something to support their story, and pinning it on an anonymous source. Using anonymous sources can really jeopardize the legitimacy of a story. In my personal experience, I find stories to be far more credible when the author uses actual names that I could search out if I needed to. Sometimes a source will ask to be anonymous, which puts the journalist into a sticky situation, especially concerning legal manners. In a court of law, journalists are not protected. If they refuse to give up the details of a certain situations, they are held liable and could possibly face charges. For the most part, I believe that there is almost always another way of getting a story without using anonymous sources, and it's best to avoid it. However, there may be a time in every journalists career where he or she will realize that the only way they can get information is by allowing the source to be anonymous. The following video talks about the lengths that a journalist may go to in order to "report off the record", but also the hesitancy that occurs in doing this. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNKQmpNP50


Accuracy Checklist:


Sometimes it may be tempting for a journalist to make subtle hints towards their opinions, over-emphasize certain facts, or write a lead that may not be completely accurate. While this may make a story more interesting, it isn't typically a good idea. A journalist shouldn't make citizens more excited about a certain story than is necessary. In a world that lives off of rumors, gossip, and the latest scandal, stories often get blown out of proportion, and other stories get pushed to the back burner. One of the hardest parts of being a journalist, in my opinion, is striving to be unbiased. There will be times when a journalist will feel particularly passionate about a certain topic, and they will want to throw in a subtle opinion. This is not acceptable in professional writing. This is where journalists need to become disconnected from their subjects, and as Carol Marin said, "steps away from the table and tries to see it all." 


Verification:


Basically, journalists should not deceive the audience. A journalists most important obligation is to be honest and tactful towards the readers. Readers want to trust those who are reporting the news, and if a certain reporter is always telling half-truths, their validity goes down. 


Even though it may sometimes be easier to correct a statement later rather than take the time and verify facts in the beginning, it is important to do so. If mistakes are constantly being made, it's hard to trust the company that is giving the news. Citizens want the truth. And even if it takes time, verifying something will benefit all in the end. The readers shouldn't have to doubt the legitimacy of statements, or seek information elsewhere to check certain stories. Journalists need to verify their work and create a trusting relationship with those that they report for. 




For more on Journalism of Verification, check out these articles and videos:


http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100292


http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379375_domke17.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzUTLQO1qX0 --The discipline of journalistic verification


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPTiR_x8l6E --Battle of Real name Verification

The Profession

When I first considered a career in journalism, I was quite naive. I thought, "It'll be fun to become a reporter and write interesting stories for the public to read. How hard can it be to report what I see?" However, as I have furthered my education and learned more of the profession, I have to come to realize what a complicated and intricate field it is.

Journalism, as a profession, is all about being a watch dog for the public and a gatekeeper for society. The number one priority is to inform citizens of what is going on around them. However, there are many rules and regulations that have to be considered before these stories hit the front page. Confidentiality, being separate from the public, not being biased. It is a complicated system.

However, there are many who don't believe that journalism as profession. On one website, an author wrote about why it is not a profession. The author, Sam Smith, stated that "the institution of journalism functions like all large institutions; it is is greedy, self-promoting, and driven towards the acquisition of power. The thing that has saved it has been the integrity and craft of individual journalists." While there are greedy and dishonest people within the journalism field, I disagree with Smith. Journalism is a profession. There are codes of ethics that need to be followed, and many rules and regulations. There is a type of "priesthood" that is commonly shared among journalists. Because of this, journalism is a profession, even though many abuse it.

In the following video, Dean Wright talks about ethics in journalism. In order for something to be considered "professional" certain ethics need to be followed.When they aren't, the particular work of that group or person may be discredited. There have been many issues with journalists making up facts or stories, but in the end they get caught.

In The Mind of a Journalist, the "priesthood of journalists" was is discussed. When I first read this, I was a bit put off. I started thinking of the priesthood within the LDS faith, and wondered how journalism was associated with that same order. However, as I read more about it, it began to make sense. As a basic definition, the book said that "journalist's see journalism as a kind of professional priesthood in which they, much like the clergy or even police officers, surrender to the higher calling of serving others." When I read it this way, I realized that there is a sort of "priesthood" within journalism, and while it may not be in the same realm as a religious priesthood, it has the same concept. Serving and protecting those around you.

There were four aspects within this "priesthood". The first one is called "The Fourth Estate." While this is concept is not very apparent in journalism today, it is a crucial aspect. In a sense it "provides counter balances and checks on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government." This is where the idea of a journalists being "watchdogs" comes in. Journalisms have an obligation to inform the public and be a watchdog for society, and by acting as "fourth estate" this becomes possible. They can be the mediator between government and society.

The second area is that journalist's learn what behavior is acceptable, and which is not, by watching the triumphs and successes of other journalists. This practice is not just for journalists, and it is often taught that we should learn from the mistakes of others what we shouldn't do. Journalist's have many ethical codes that they need to follow in order to provide legitimate news. "Learning the Ropes" as the book refers to it, is something that all journalist's must go through. There may be times of uncertainty and mistakes will inevitably make mistakes, but this "order of the priesthood" allows journalists to gain credibility and become better reporters. I discussed this a bit earlier. Journalist's often learn the hard way that you cannot make up facts for stories. One journalism, Jayson Blair, is known for the fabrication and plagiarism of stories during his career. Journalist's can look at his "example" and recognize that making things up for the sake of a story will not get them anywhere, and will more than like ostracize them from society and their career.

Journalist's are often told that they need to be separated from society and the stories in which they report on. While it may be easy for journalists' to get attached to the people in which they are reporting on, it is wise to stay as emotionally detached as possible. This may come across as not caring about the story, but it also allows the journalist to have no bias on the story in which they report. The book also talks about how it is important to separate the social and work life of a journalist.

There are other aspects of the journalism profession that are worth noting. I found it interesting that there is often a limit on confidentiality and the use of anonymous sources. Often, a person will confide in a journalist who is reporting a story. This creates a moral dilemma for a journalist on whether or not they should honor that confidentiality or use the crucial facts in a story. Using anonymous sources in journalism often makes problems because of the legality of it because if something a journalist reported on needs to be viewed in a court of law, it can put the journalist in a sticky issue. Unlike clergy, they are not protected by law if they are asked to reveal the sources of information.

One last journalistic "principle" that I found interesting was the idea of worldview. It is the idea of what stories journalists find important and how they gather their facts. While many people may regard this as being "biased", it really is not. Journalist's are people to, and they gravitate towards subjects and stories that, because of how they were raised, ethnocentrism, and a variety of other reasons, draw their attention. It is good to have a worldview, but also to develop an eye for what is important for what all of society needs to know, not just one individual.

Worldview changes depending on where a journalist is from. According to the book, Western culture is all about timeliness, and what is going on now and in the moment, rather than well-developed stories. It used the example of high-speed car chases taking precedence over the nightly news. In other cultures, the importance may be placed on developing a story and having all the facts before viewing it. Depending on where someone is reporting, it may be necessary to change a person's "world view" in order to accomdate the desires and priorities of others.

Truth and Journalism

Integrity. It's a term that most of us have had instilled in our minds from the time we were young.


As journalists, we are obligated to inform the public of the world around them. Most people rely on the evenings news, online stories, etc. to tell them what is going on. Because of this, journalists have a great obligation to be truthful. Many people are relying on their statements


Truth can be distorted. Many times, especially in tabloids and political campaigns, certain statements will be taken out of context in order to "sell a story". While this could be seen as "dishonest", I feel that this is the news that so many people live for. If the truth was always portrayed honestly, would it always be as interesting? Maybe, but probably not. We live in a society where people enjoy seeing others fail and embarass themselves. Look at reality television. With the exception of a few of the shows, people flock to watch people make fools out of themselves. And that is the same with journalism at times. Yes, journalists are obligated to tell "the truth", but it may not always be in the correct way. Is this right? Not at all, but with obligations to reach certain quotas and engage the public, journalists may feel obligated to use the truth in an interesting way.


Journalists are also supposed to be objective and non-biased. This is something I need to work on personally. When I don't agree with something, it's hard for me to act otherwise. However, as a journalist, it is important to portray both sides evenly, and without bias. This goes hand in hand with telling the truth. Whether a journalist agrees with a certain statement or not, they are obligated to present sides fairly. In the same sort of situation, journalists should not express their opinion if the situation does not call for it.  John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times said:
"I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with . . . If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone."




Celebrities are quite often the victims of "stretched truth" within journalism. Angelina Jolie, being the incredibly honest and integrity-ful person she is, expressed her opinion on truth in journalism in this video:



Honestly, I do believe that there are good, honest journalists out there who just want to inform the public. It is tough, trying to be un-biased but report the facts how they are. The public deserves to know what is going on in the world, and that can sometimes only come from journalists who strive to teach them.


But is there such thing as too much truth? Does there come a point when journalists' need to weed out some of the stories, in order to protect the public? I believe so. In 2008, someone from CNN demonstrated how to get past airport security with a bomb, and the article/video was shown on CNN. Now, I doubt CNN was showing this to the public so more terrorists could get past security, but I believe this is an instance where information was displayed that the public didn't need to know. CNN was trying to make a point that the security at airports needed to be tightened up, but in reality, this was not knowledge that was essential to be released to the public.


It has been said that people cannot be good members of the Church and in journalism at the same time. I really don't believe this. Yes, there are some situations where a journalist may feel compromised and have to report on something they may not particularly agree with. But at the same time, having the basis of integrity in their lives, I believes that members of the Church can be extremely good journalists. I'm not saying that all LDS journalists are honest, but I do believe that for the most part, many do strive for integrity in their work, and strive to tell the truth in an objective way.