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