Verification in journalism is sort of everything, because our first obligation is to the truth and our loyalty to the citizen. Without verification of facts, we can’t be sure we are promoting the truth or being loyal to the citizen. Without verification, we pretty much are a tabloid magazine for businesses and government.
The text gave a few examples for how certain journalists or editors check their facts. Some have long lists of checkpoints asking questions like “Did you double check the quotes to make sure they are accurate in context?” What is also interesting is that a lot of newspapers have a person dedicated to checking facts. A “Fact Checker.” Now, I would not like to have this job because it must be pretty redundant and tough at times. Also, if you do your job well, no one cares, but if you slip up and the paper get sued, well then you’re out of a job.
Even though this position doesn’t get praised very much, it is crucial to journalism. Even according to the Hand Book of Journalism website, there is an entire section devoted to accuracy and the steps that should be taken if a mistake does occur.
Anonymous sources have provided amazing, groundbreaking stories such as the John Edwards paternity story as written about on the Poynter website and how an anonymous source was crucial. Especially in DC where government stories and government personnel are all around, anonymous sources are rampant. Though it is important for newspapers to find that balance between naming sources and not.
As a journalist, the question is always: How far would you go to protect your source? I would love to say I would be a hero, but I don’t think that’s true. Especially if I had a family to take care of, I just don’t think I could go to jail to protect a source. Though I do not expect to be writing some controversial story anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment