Journalism of Verification

I feel like this post goes right along with the previous one on truth, but a little more in depth on how to get there.

Verification. What is it? Basically, it means that you make sure that everything you say is the absolute truth.  Never add anything that is not there, never deceive the audience, and rely on your own methods and reporting rather than others'.

Three points of verification were brought up in class this week:
-Objectivity
-Transparency
-Originality

Let's start with objectivity. This means that you remain completely unbiased and report the straight facts. This helps keep your writing accurate rather than saying what you think needs to be said.

But why is it so important to remain unbiased? First of all, if you only report one side of a story, you are going to have a lot of people upset at you for not representing the other side. In addition, when you insert your opinion, you are automatically going lose all of your audience who disagree. Second of all, people don't like being told how to feel about something. Give them the information and let them decide for themselves.

Here is an article written by John Stossel called "The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism." He talks about how when he got to the national level of reporting, he got criticized for not being objective and stopped winning Emmys - consequences for inserting personal opinions into writing.

Let's move on to transparency. This is when you disclose as much as you can about your sources. Use anonymous sources sparingly and only when you absolutely have to. The more you tell about your source, the more believable your information becomes. When you cite your source as being anonymous, it could have come from anywhere and anyone, including yourself.

It is also important that you use a variety of sources. If your story only has one source, the information is not going to be as believable as if you had three or more. In addition, people will realize that you did not make the effort to present multiple sides of the story, which could definitely cause them to lose all interest.

The last point is originality. This means doing your own work, finding the facts on your own, and not looking to other media. All of these things take away the credibility of your writing.

I think originality is the most important but also the most difficult of the three points of verification. You must be original to keep the attention of your audience. People don't want to read something they've read ten times before. Come up with new ways to look at a situation. Present facts that not many people know. Tell a story that's never been told. And it's not only what you say, but how you say it.

All three of these things - objectivity, transparency, and originality - contribute to the accuracy of your writing. And accuracy is extremely important when it comes to journalism. Not only is your reputation on the line, but so is your job.

The Truth

There are NO real substitutes for the truth in journalism. Why?

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Always.

So why is the truth so important? Here are a few reasons:

-To gain the trust of your audience.

-To make your writing credible.

-To give your readers a sense of security.

However, you must be careful. Is there ever a time when the truth is not okay? I believe there is. For example, certain things are best not said at all in order to give people privacy. If something you say could damage a person's reputation and that certain fact is not relevant to the story, then maybe you should think twice about adding it. You need to find a balance between truth and ethics. However, NEVER make something up just to make your story more interesting. That is pretty much the worst thing you could do as a journalist.

Now I don't think that most journalists just flat out lie to the public without caring. There are those exceptions in the past, such as Steven Glass, who make up stories to gain the interest of their readers. But I believe most journalists have good intentions, but don't fully carry them out. For example, a journalist might think something happened a certain way when it actually didn't. The journalist didn't intentionally lie to the public, but their credibility is still damaged. This is where we have to be careful. This is where we have to be, what Robert Niles calls it, "truth vigilantes."

So what about bloggers? What is their obligation to the truth? Do they even have one?

What I have to say about blogs is this: blogs are people's personal websites. They can post anything they want on them. Should they post the truth and only the truth on their blogs? Yes. Should they be responsible if they do not? No. You have to understand that while blogs may be interesting and contain new points of view, they are not credible. People can post whatever they want on their blogs. It's unfortunate that those who post unreliable information on their sites ruin it for the rest of us, but that's how it is. They just can't be trusted.

I think this video clip makes a good point. Sometimes it is hard as journalists to distinguish what is the truth and what is not. But we have to keep in mind that there are always going to be opposing views and different ways to look at every situation. However, it is our duty to portray both of those sides as best and as truthfully as we possibly can. A good rule to follow is that if you're not sure if something is the complete truth, then just don't say it at all.

The Society of Professional Journalists' website contains a list of ways to "seek truth and report it." Click here to view it.