Learning objective

Students will analyse the role of record-keeping in journalism by identifying key elements that contribute to comprehensive news coverage. They will evaluate how maintaining detailed records enhances the ability to provide context in breaking news situations.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to explain why keeping detailed records is crucial for journalists and how it helps in reporting news stories with context.
• Standards: This lesson is designed to help students understand the importance of keeping detailed records of stories they have covered.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Begin with a brief discussion: “Why do you think keeping records is important in journalism?” Allow students to share thoughts. Then, present a scenario: “Imagine you’re a journalist covering a developing story. You need to provide background information quickly. What records would be helpful?” Encourage students to brainstorm types of records (e.g., past articles, interview notes). This primes them for understanding the role of record-keeping in providing context.

Direct instruction

• Conceptual understanding: Explain the historical context of record-keeping in journalism. Discuss how journalists traditionally kept records using physical methods like newspaper cuttings and notes. Highlight the transition to digital tools, emphasising that while technology has evolved, the core principles of record-keeping remain unchanged. Use real examples, such as a journalist’s personal archive, to illustrate the importance of maintaining records for context in news stories.
• Procedural skills and fluency: Demonstrate how to organise and categorise records effectively. Present a step-by-step process for setting up a digital record-keeping system. Include:
  • Selecting relevant topics based on audience needs and personal interests.
  • Using digital tools to tag and categorise information for easy retrieval.
  • Sharing and collaborating on records with peers to enhance collective knowledge.

Provide a scenario where students must organise a set of digital articles and notes into a coherent system. Guide them through the process, ensuring they understand each step.

Application: Present a case study of a breaking news story. Ask students to identify what records would be necessary to provide comprehensive coverage. Discuss how these records add value and context to the story. Encourage students to think critically about the types of information that would enrich the narrative and how they would access and utilise these records in a real-world setting.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share

• Think: Ask students to individually reflect on a recent news story they found compelling. Have them list the types of records that would be essential for a journalist covering that story to provide context and depth.
• Pair: In pairs, students share their lists and discuss the reasons for choosing each type of record. Encourage them to consider how these records could enhance the story’s coverage.
• Share: Facilitate a class discussion where pairs present their findings. Highlight common records identified and discuss any unique suggestions. Emphasise how these records contribute to comprehensive news coverage.
• Connect: Guide students to connect their findings to the lesson’s learning objective. Discuss how maintaining detailed records supports journalists in providing context in breaking news situations.
• Reflect: Conclude with a brief reflection. Ask students to consider how they might apply these record-keeping strategies in their own work or studies. Encourage them to think about the importance of organisation and accessibility in record-keeping.

Independent practice

• Assign students to select a recent news story of interest.
• Instruct them to create a digital record-keeping system for the story.
• Require them to:
  • Identify and save relevant articles, interviews, and notes.
  • Tag and categorise each item for easy retrieval.
  • Write a brief explanation of how each record adds context to the story.
• Direct students to practice a related exercise by placing placeholders where I should link to said exercise.
• Circulate to observe and support students as needed.

Assignment

Ask students these questions:

1. What is one key reason journalists keep detailed records?
2. How can digital tools enhance the record-keeping process for journalists?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: To provide context and depth in news stories.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: They allow for easier organisation, retrieval, and sharing of information.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage them to explore advanced digital tools for record-keeping, such as databases or specialised software. Suggest they analyse a complex news story, identifying nuanced records that add depth. Challenge them to create a presentation on how these records could influence public perception.
• Striving learners: Provide a simplified template for organising records. Use a guided worksheet to help them identify basic types of records. Pair them with peers for collaborative activities to build confidence. Offer additional examples and one-on-one support to reinforce understanding.
• Background reading: This lesson plan is based on the article ‘The importance of keeping records‘, which we recommend you read before adapting this lesson plan for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Record-keeping: The systematic process of collecting, organising, and maintaining information for future reference, ensuring accuracy and accessibility in journalism.
• Context: Background information that provides a deeper understanding of a news story, helping audiences grasp the significance and implications of events.
• Digital tools: Software and online platforms that facilitate the storage, organisation, and sharing of information, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of record-keeping in the digital age.

Required materials

• Computers or tablets with internet access
• Digital storage tools (e.g., Google Drive, Evernote)
• Access to online news articles
• Note-taking software or apps
• Projector or screen for demonstrations

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

Related article

The importance of keeping records

The post Lesson: Keeping Records first appeared on Media Helping Media.

We recommend that trainers read two articles on this site before adapting this lesson outline for their own purposes. Those articles are ‘Fact-checking and adding context‘ and ‘Beyond the basics of fact-checking‘.

Learning objective

Students will critically evaluate information by applying advanced fact-checking techniques to identify misinformation and disinformation. They will analyse claims using contextual analysis, evidence-based reasoning, and ethical awareness.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson, I’ll be able to use advanced fact-checking skills to spot and analyse misinformation and disinformation.
• Standards: Students will learn how to build on their fact-checking skills in order to create a rigorous system for combating misinformation and disinformation and all forms of fake news.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Display a series of brief statements related to current events or common knowledge. Ask students to decide if each statement is true or false. Encourage them to consider the source, context, and potential biases. After each statement, prompt students to share their reasoning and discuss different perspectives. This will activate their critical thinking and prepare them for deeper fact-checking analysis.

Direct instruction

Conceptual understanding: Introduce the concept of misinformation and disinformation. Use real examples, such as a recent viral social media post, to illustrate the difference. Discuss the motivations behind spreading false information. Ask students to identify potential impacts on society. Facilitate a brief discussion on the importance of critical thinking in evaluating information.

• Procedural skills and fluency: Demonstrate the fact-checking process using a step-by-step approach. Select a claim from a reputable news source. Walk through the steps:
• Selection and prioritisation: Explain why this claim is significant.
• Research and verification: Show how to use tools like reverse image search and keyword search.
• Analysis and interpretation: Evaluate the credibility of sources and evidence.
• Publication and dissemination: Discuss how to present findings clearly.
• Application: Present a scenario where students must apply their fact-checking skills. Use a hypothetical news article with embedded claims. Instruct students to work in pairs to:
  • Identify claims to fact-check.
  • Use research tools to verify information.
  • Analyse the context and potential biases.
  • Prepare a brief report on their findings.
  • Encourage students to consider ethical implications and the importance of transparency in their reports.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured activity to reinforce fact-checking skills.

• Think: Present a new claim related to a current event. Ask students to individually analyse the claim, considering source credibility, context, and potential biases.
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their analyses. Encourage them to compare their findings and reasoning.
• Share: Facilitate a class discussion where pairs share their insights. Highlight diverse perspectives and correct any misconceptions. Use this opportunity to reinforce ethical considerations and transparency in fact-checking.
• Clarify: Address any questions or uncertainties that arise during the discussion. Provide additional examples or resources if needed.
• Reflect: Ask students to reflect on how their understanding of fact-checking has evolved. Encourage them to consider how they can apply these skills in real-world scenarios.

Independent practice

Assign students an exercise where they independently fact-check a short article containing multiple claims. Provide a placeholder for the article link. Instruct students to:

• Select one claim to verify.
• Use online tools to research and gather evidence.
• Analyse the context and identify any biases.
• Document their process and findings in a concise report.
• Encourage students to reflect on the ethical implications of their findings and the importance of transparency.

Assignment

Ask students these questions:

1. How does contextual analysis enhance the fact-checking process?
2. Why is ethical awareness important in fact-checking?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: Contextual analysis helps identify the source, audience, and motivations, providing a deeper understanding of the claim.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: Ethical awareness ensures fairness, transparency, and consideration of the impact on individuals and society.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper exploration by having students fact-check more complex claims involving nuanced language or ambiguous evidence. Suggest they explore the ethical implications of fact-checking in different cultural contexts. Challenge them to create a presentation on the future of fact-checking, incorporating emerging technologies.
• Striving learners: Simplify tasks by providing structured templates for the fact-checking process. Use more straightforward claims for analysis. Pair them with peers for collaborative work to build confidence. Offer additional examples and guided practice to reinforce understanding.
• Recommended reading: As mentioned earlier we recommend that trainers read two articles on this site before adapting this lesson outline for their own purposes. Those articles are ‘Fact-checking and adding context‘ and ‘Beyond the basics of fact-checking‘.

Notable definitions

• Misinformation: False or misleading information spread without harmful intent. It often arises from misunderstanding or lack of knowledge.
• Disinformation: Deliberately false information spread with the intent to deceive or mislead. It is often used to manipulate public opinion or obscure the truth.
• Contextual analysis: The process of examining the circumstances surrounding a claim, including the source, audience, and potential motivations, to better understand its validity and implications.

Required materials

• Computers or tablets with internet access
• Access to fact-checking tools (e.g., reverse image search, keyword search)
• Printed or digital copies of a hypothetical news article for analysis
• Notebooks or digital devices for note-taking and report writing
• Projector or screen for displaying statements and examples

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

Related articles

Fact-checking and adding context

Beyond basic fact-checking

The post Lesson: Beyond basic fact-checking first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The aim is to combat misinformation and promote informed decision-making.

This site already has a piece about the basics of fact-checking and adding context, this article is a combination of two former articles on the site which looked at fact-checking in more depth.

Why fact-checking matters

We live in a time where trust in information is constantly tested. Misinformation (false but unintentional) and disinformation (deliberately misleading content) make it harder to make informed decisions. Fortunately, fact-checking tools are more accessible than ever, but they have limits. Not every claim can be verified. Opinions, predictions, and intent fall outside its scope. The challenge is that anyone can share information, blurring the line between credible news and baseless claims.

The fact-checker’s mindset

A fact-checker’s mindset means thinking critically about information by:

• Being skeptical and curious: Questioning claims instead of accepting them at face value.
• Understanding context: Looking at the source, audience, and possible motivations behind the information.
• Relying on evidence: Using credible sources and avoiding personal biases.
• Acting ethically: Being fair and transparent about how information is verified.
• Working together: Fact-checking is more effective when done collaboratively.

How fact-checking works

1. Choosing what to fact-check
   • Prioritise claims that could have real-world impact.
   • Pay attention to statements from public figures and viral content.
   • Distinguish between deliberate lies and honest mistakes.
2. Keeping records
   1. Save original sources to prevent claims from disappearing.
   2. Document the verification process for transparency.
3. Research & verification
   • Use keyword searches, reverse image searches, and expert opinions.
   • Check geolocation and video analysis tools for visual claims.
   • Rely on reputable sources such as established news organisations, universities, and government agencies.
   • Be aware of the complexities of video verification and proper interviewing techniques.
4. Analysing information
   • Assess the credibility of sources and strength of evidence.
   • Recognise how language can be used to mislead.
   • Accept that some claims have grey areas and can’t always be definitively fact-checked.
   • Understand the differences between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.
5. Publishing & sharing findings
   • Present findings in a clear and accessible way.
   • Provide context to help readers understand why the fact-check matters.
   • Be transparent about the process and sources used.
   • Follow clear correction policies.
   • Know the difference between pre-publication and post-publication fact-checking.

The challenges of fact-checking

• Speed of misinformation: False information spreads quickly, making it hard to keep up.
• Complexity of truth: Some claims require deep analysis and careful wording.
• Fact-checking misuse: It can be weaponised to silence opinions or push agendas.
• Mental health impact: Fact-checkers often face exposure to disturbing content.
• Digital security risks: Online harassment and cyber threats are real concerns.
• Bias awareness: Fact-checkers must recognise and counteract their own biases.

Ethical guidelines for fact-checkers

• Be transparent: Explain how fact-checks are conducted and what sources are used.
• Stay impartial: Avoid personal biases and strive for objectivity.
• Be accurate: Verify everything before publishing.
• Take responsibility: Admit and correct mistakes when needed.
• Prioritise safety: Protect personal security and mental well-being.

The future of fact-checking

Fact-checking is always evolving, adapting to new technologies and challenges. It requires teamwork from journalists, researchers, educators, and the audience. By strengthening media literacy and critical thinking, we can all play a role in ensuring society is better informed.

Questions

1. What is the primary aim of fact-checking?
2. How does the text define the process of fact-checking beyond simple verification?
3. Why is cultivating a “fact-checker’s mindset” important in today’s information landscape?
4. List three components of a “fact-checker’s mindset”.
5. Explain the significance of archiving and documentation in the fact-checking process.
6. What are some of the research methods used in fact-checking?
7. How does the text differentiate between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation?
8. Discuss the challenges fact-checkers face in keeping up with the speed of disinformation.
9. What ethical considerations should fact-checkers keep in mind during their work?
10. How does the text suggest fact-checking can contribute to a more informed and resilient society?

Answers

1. The primary aim of fact-checking is to combat misinformation and promote informed decision-making.
2. Fact-checking is described as a rigorous process of evaluating claims against verifiable evidence, contextualising information, and understanding the motivations behind its dissemination.
3. Cultivating a “fact-checker’s mindset” is important because it helps individuals discern truth from falsehood in an era where trust is constantly challenged by misinformation and disinformation.
4. Three components of a “fact-checker’s mindset” are skepticism and curiosity, contextual analysis, and evidence-based reasoning.
5. Archiving and documentation are significant because they preserve the original source material and ensure transparency, allowing for the replication of the fact-checking process.
6. Some research methods used in fact-checking include keyword searches, reverse image searches, expert consultations, and the use of open-source tools for geolocation and video analysis.
7. Misinformation is false information spread without harmful intent, disinformation is false information spread with the intent to deceive, and malinformation is true information used maliciously.
8. Fact-checkers face challenges in keeping up with the speed of disinformation because false information spreads rapidly, often outpacing the ability to verify and correct it.
9. Ethical considerations for fact-checkers include transparency, impartiality, accuracy, accountability, and safety.
10. The text suggests that fact-checking can contribute to a more informed and resilient society by fostering media literacy and critical thinking skills, empowering individuals to become discerning consumers of information.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: ‘Beyond basic fact-checking‘ which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

The post Beyond basic fact-checking first appeared on Media Helping Media.

It’s the job of the journalist to try to find and present the truth, but fact-checking isn’t easy. It requires a methodological approach to verification.

Many find it difficult to distinguish between credible and misleading content in today’s digital age. With the rise of social media, false and misleading information has become more prevalent, making it even more difficult for people to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Because many media outlets are profit-driven, sensationalist and clickbait content frequently takes precedence over fact-based journalism. As a result, trust in journalism as a whole has declined, while, at the same time, skepticism about the reliability of information published and shared has grown.

The preference of social media platforms for engagement and amplification has contributed to the information disorder. Indeed, credible and evidence-based information is in short supply, while false and misleading content continues to spread on social media.

Because of this it is critical to have a strong fact-checking system in place to combat the spread of false and misleading information.

A fact-checker must be skilled at digital investigation and willing to go the extra mile to uncover a kernel of truth. To assess the veracity of information accurately, fact-checkers must be trained in and have access to digital tools, techniques, and resources.

Fact-checking in action

At Nepal Check, we use both human intelligence and digital tools to verify information spreading online. Over the past six months, we have fact-checked a wide range of false claims, from political statements to health misinformation.

On the eve of the November 20 2022 elections in Nepal, we fact-checked screenshots purported to be from a secret circular issued by the ruling Nepali Congress urging its supporters not to vote for Maoist candidates.

Not only was the so-called “secret circular” made up. Election misinformation spreaders created screenshots of ‘news’ that claimed to have been published by reputable digital outlets and a newspaper in Nepal.

We dug deep into the misinformation spreaders to find out what party they were affiliated with. We found that the majority were affiliated with an opposition party that competed with the ruling alliance.

One of the fake news reports had a reporter’s byline. The claim was refuted by the reporter himself. In the fact-check, Nepal Check cited him. We also cited news outlets that claimed the screenshots were fake. In addition to relying on their statement, we checked the claims on news websites.

Finally, our investigation revealed that the Nepali Congress party’s Central Working Committee had not met in nearly three months when the meeting was claimed. We also used the occasion to explain how morphed screenshots are created. In doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the technique so that people would think twice before spreading false information.

We fact-checked videos with false claims that Gagan Thapa, the general secretary of the Nepali Congress, promised freebies if elected prime minister. Thapa is a popular politician and is often the target of misinformation. The video claiming Thapa promised free smartphones, free petrol and a monthly stipend for the elderly had circulated on social media for several months.

To debunk the claim, we needed to find the original, full version of the video. So we started by looking up the video on YouTube. We discovered a video of the political function, but it lacked the section where Thapa was quoted. However, the video provided an important clue that a fact-checker can use to conduct additional research. It displayed the event’s date and location.

With this vital information, we were able to locate the event organizer’s Facebook page. A further Google search led us to the full version of the video, which had been published by a local television station. We found that Thapa’s statement had been taken out of context in order to spread misinformation.

Thapa had argued that while populist programs receive widespread support, they are difficult to fund. To disseminate misinformation, the video, which was more than an hour long, was edited down to a 22-second clip. We could verify this by following the claim back to its source, which is an important aspect of combating misinformation.

Human intelligence and engaging the audience

While the digital age creates opportunities for the spread of fake news, misinformation and disinformation, it also creates opportunities for fact checkers to follow digital trails in order to try to find the source and the veracity of the information being shared.

The fundamental journalistic skills of fact-checking are not new, they just need applying to the digital age. Our duty, as always, is to publish accurate, fair, objective, impartial and well-sourced information, backed by well-researched context and analysis. That has not changed. And digital tools are a massive help in the pursuit of robust and critical journalism. We just need to make sure we are using those tools as well as those who propagate falsehoods do.

All newsrooms must have a fact-checking team made up of dedicated journalists who are skilled in thorough research and diligent scrutiny in order to ensure that all information shared is a true representation of news events.

Below is a list of some of the tools Nepal Check uses, and how we use them.

Human intelligence

• Research who is behind the information being spread, try to find a trail of similar information to lead you to the source.
• Does the fake news item carry a byline? Does that person exist? If they do contact them. By doing so you might find a new lead in your search for the truth.
• Does what is being said stand up to historical scrutiny? Research and establish the sequence of events leading up to the claims.

Digital tools

• Is the evidence real or manipulated or used out of context?
• Are screenshots real or fake, can you find any evidence of the original material online or in print? If not, why not? Who could have created the screenshots and why?
• Is video being used? Has a clip been taken out of context? As a journalist you have a duty to search for the original, watch it in its entirety, and offer a more complete picture including the situation and circumstances in which it was shot in order to add context and relevance.
• When you find the original you will also discover the date and, possibly, the location of the original material. Do these match the details in the clip?
• Check all social media links back to the original source to find out what other material has been shared.

Engaging your audience

• Be totally transparent in your myth-busting research.
• Let those who read your journalism know the steps you took and the evidence you uncovered.
• By doing so you will help them understand more about fake news and empower them with the tools to do their own fact-checking.

The post Creating a strong fact-checking system first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism is about far more than simply gathering information then passing it on. An essential part of the editorial process is to examine everything we are told to make sure it is factual.

We then add context so that any facts that are uncovered are considered alongside existing knowledge.

This is the first of two articles on this site about fact-checking. The other is ‘Beyond basic fact-checking‘ which we recommend you read after finishing this piece.

Journalists have a responsibility to apply editorial values to every piece of information that comes our way before we pass it on to others (see the material in our ethics section).

Once a piece of journalism is in the public domain it will be referenced, quoted, and possibly plagiarised as it becomes part of the global conversation. If that piece of journalism is untrue or flawed in any way, then lasting damage will have been done.

But let’s first agree what is meant by the word ‘fact’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a fact is something that is “known or proved to be true”. It is also “information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article”. In legal terms, a fact is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation”.

And that last definition is interesting, because journalists ‘interpret’ events by adding context – but more on that later. For now, let’s refer to facts that have not yet been fully tested as ‘claims’.

Here are a few tests that should be applied to information that a journalist receives from someone who ‘claims’ that what they are passing on is factual.

The first three tests are about source verification and fact-checking, the fourth is about adding context.

Is the source credible?

• What do we know about the source?
• What is their motive for sharing the information?
• Could the source have an agenda about which we are not aware?

Recommended: Research the background of the source, their connections, any previous record of sharing information.

Has it happened?

• Could there be a simple explanation?
• Has your source been misled? If so, by whom?
• Is there a history of such an event taking place?

Recommended: Research the chronology of events. Check your own news organisation’s archive. Search the web.

Where is the evidence?

• Is the information available elsewhere?
• What is the evidence to support the claim?
• Has that evidence been tested?

Recommended: Seek out a second, independent and trusted source.

What is the context?

• What are the implications if the claims are true?
• How many people are affected and how?
• Gather data and statistics for comparison purposes.

Recommended: Paint the bigger picture, understand the importance of the event in relation to other news stories.

Examples of adding context

• Economic context: When reporting on rising unemployment rates, provide context by including historical unemployment data, comparisons to other countries, and expert analysis on the economic factors contributing to the trend. For example, ‘While the current unemployment rate is 6%, this is a 2% increase from the previous quarter and the highest rate seen since the 2008 financial crisis.’
• Political context: When covering a new policy announcement, explain the policy’s history, its potential impact on different groups, and the political motivations behind it. For example, ‘This new environmental regulation is the latest in a series of measures aimed at reducing carbon emissions, following years of lobbying from environmental groups and facing opposition from industry leaders.’
• Social context: When reporting on a crime, provide context by discussing the social and economic factors that may have contributed to it, without excusing criminal behaviour. For example, ‘This incident occurred in an area with high rates of poverty and limited access to social services, which experts say can contribute to increased crime rates.’
• Historical context: When covering a protest, give the background of the reasons for the protest, any past protests concerning similar issues, and any key players in the organisation of the protest.

Those of you who are new to journalism might want to print out the following checklist and put it on the wall in your newsroom as a reminder.

If the results of your research make you feel uneasy you might want to drop the story. However, even a false claim, presented as fact, but, on investigation, found to be untrue, could still be a story. It could point to a political, commercial, or social conflict that might require investigation.

Never rule out a possible news story because the initial evidence presented proves to be shaky.

Now let’s look at point four ‘the context’ more closely.

Adding context

One dictionary definition of ‘context’ is: “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”

That word, ‘understood’, is important.

The role of a journalist is to enhance understanding. We do that by surrounding proven facts with data, statistics, history, and circumstances that, together, help paint a fuller picture of what has happened.

Think of it this way.

Imagine you are at home watching a series on TV. It’s the final episode of six. Just as the programme is reaching the conclusion there is a knock at the door. It’s a friend you haven’t seen for some time. You welcome them in.

As they walk through the door there is a scream from the lounge. One of the characters in the TV series has discovered the gruesome remains of a body. Your guest is shocked, but fascinated.

You offer to turn the TV off so you can chat, but they are so intrigued by what they saw on the screen that they ask you whether they could watch the programme with you, particularly as it’s reaching its conclusion. They want to know what happens next.

So you pause the programme, put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and tell your guest about what has happened so far.

You explain who the characters are, what has taken place in previous episodes, how the situation has developed, the relationships between the characters, what clues you have picked up along the way, and how the plot has thickened to reach the point where your guest heard the scream.

And explaining the background proves to be important because your friend thought you must be watching a murder mystery, when, in fact, the series you were watching was a documentary about archeology. The scream was from an archeologist who had unexpectedly found mummified remains. It was not a modern-day crime thriller.

Now your guest has the context, so you can watch the end of the final episode together, with your guest informed about the background to the story and better able to understand events.

The same is true with journalism.

A colleague who was working as an intake editor on a news desk remembers receiving a call from an off-duty reporter who had just passed an overturned red double decker bus on  a London street. People were wandering around with blood pouring from wounds. Two camera crews were mobilised, but before they’d even left the building the reporter discovered that it was a film crew making a movie. The story had changed once the reporter had checked his facts and explored the context.

I made a similar mistake when reporting on a fire at an inner city block of flats in Liverpool. I reported live into the 4pm news bulletin saying that residents were trying to salvage what they could from their burning homes. I was wrong. Had I checked my facts, not made assumptions, and taken time to establish the context of events I would have discovered that I was witnessing rioting and looting. You can read about that experience and the lessons learnt here.

The challenge all journalists face is not just to report the news but to also set out the background to an event as well as all related events in order to help the audience understand the elements of a story which they might otherwise find hard to comprehend – or even reach the wrong conclusion.

Perhaps it involves researching and setting out the chronology of events that have led to the current breaking news story. These can be presented as related stories.

You might need to research the backgrounds of the characters involved as you look for any social connections to anyone else involved. These can be presented as profiles.

Essentially, what you are doing is gathering as much information as possible in order to put together the most detailed, in-depth, and informative account of what has happened.

All this illustrates that journalism helps people make sense of the world – not just what’s happening, but why it’s happening. Stories that raise questions without even attempting to address those questions are weak stories.

• A bridge has collapsed. Why?
• A racing driver stops his car while leading the race. Why?
• A politician resigns. Why?

A news story without context can never be completely understood. A news source that is not verified can never be completely trusted. A claim, left unchecked, might not necessarily be a fact. And a news story without fact-checking and context could add more to the cacophony of confusion than to the enhancement of understanding.

The evolving nature of truth

Beyond revisiting and revising, it’s important to acknowledge that “truth” itself can be complex and contested, particularly in stories involving social issues or conflicting narratives.

Fact-checking isn’t just about verifying isolated facts; it’s about understanding the different interpretations of those facts and how they contribute to larger narratives.

Journalists should strive for accuracy and fairness, acknowledging where interpretations diverge and avoiding presenting a single, definitive “truth” when it doesn’t exist.

Examples

• In reporting on a controversial trial, present the prosecution’s and defences arguments fairly, even if they contradict each other. Clearly label each perspective and avoid presenting one as the definitive truth. For example, ‘The prosecution argued that the defendant acted with malice, citing X evidence, while the defence maintained that the defendant acted in defence, citing Y evidence.’ 
• When covering a historical event with multiple interpretations, acknowledge those differing interpretations and provide sources for each. For example, ‘Historians disagree on the exact causes of the civil war, with some emphasising economic factors and others focusing on social tensions. Both perspectives are supported by historical evidence, as seen in the works of [source 1] and [source 2].’
• When reporting on a scientific study that has conflicting results from other studies, make the audience aware of those conflicts, and if possible give reasons for the conflicts.

Source evaluation in the digital age

Lateral reading is crucial, but so is understanding the motivations and potential biases of sources, especially online. Lateral reading is a technique for evaluating online information by opening multiple tabs in your browser to investigate the credibility of the source, rather than just reading the information on the page itself (which is called ‘vertical reading’).

• Is the source trying to sell something?
• Do they have a political agenda?
• Are they affiliated with a particular group or organisation?

These questions should be part of the fact-checking process.

We should also consider the rise of synthetic media (deepfakes) and the challenges they pose to verifying information.

Examples

• When encountering a website claiming to have groundbreaking scientific findings, use lateral reading by checking reputable scientific journals and organisations to see if those findings are corroborated. For example, searching for the study’s author or institution on Google Scholar.
• To verify the authenticity of an image, use a reverse image search tool such as Google Images or TinEye to see if the image has appeared elsewhere online and in what context. This can help identify manipulated or misattributed images.
• When a source quotes statistics, check the original source of those statistics. For example, if a source cites a statistic about poverty rates, look for the original report from a government agency or reputable research institution.
• Use tools such as whois to check who owns a website, and when it was created. This can help to determine the validity of the website.

Fact-checking as a collaborative process

Fact-checking shouldn’t be solely the responsibility of individual journalists. Newsrooms should foster a culture of fact-checking, where everyone is encouraged to question and verify information.

This can involve dedicated fact-checking teams, collaborative editing processes, and clear guidelines for source evaluation.

The limits of fact-checking: Fact-checking can verify specific claims, but it can’t always address broader issues of interpretation or framing.

A story can be factually accurate but still misleading if it’s presented in a way that distorts the overall picture. This highlights the importance of context.

Examples

• Always verify the date of information, especially in rapidly evolving situations. Outdated information can be misleading. For example, a study from 2010 on climate change may not reflect the latest scientific consensus.
• Consider the ongoing validity of information. A source that was credible in the past may have changed its stance or credibility over time. For example, a political organisation’s website may have been updated with new, potentially biased, information.
• When using archive material, always make the date of the material clear to the audience. For example, ‘In a 1960 news report…’

Deepening the discussion of context

Context and power: Context is not neutral. Those in positions of power often have greater control over the narrative and can shape the context in ways that benefit them.

Journalists should be aware of these power dynamics and strive to provide context that challenges dominant narratives and gives voice to marginalised perspectives.

The “how” question: In addition to “why,” exploring the “how” is crucial. How did this event happen? What were the processes and mechanisms involved?

Understanding the “how” can reveal systemic issues and prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

Context and time: Context is not static; it evolves over time. A story that is accurate and contextualised today might be incomplete or misleading tomorrow as new information emerges.

Journalists need to be prepared to update their reporting and provide ongoing context as the story unfolds.

The ethics of context: Providing context can sometimes involve revealing sensitive information or information that could be harmful to individuals or groups.

Journalists must carefully weigh the public’s right to know against the potential harm and make ethical decisions about what context to include.

Adding perspective

The business model of misinformation: The spread of misinformation is often driven by economic incentives. Clickbait headlines, sensationalised stories, and emotionally charged content can generate more clicks and revenue, even if they are not accurate.

Understanding the business model of misinformation is crucial for combating it.

The role of technology platforms: Social media platforms and search engines play a significant role in the dissemination of information, both accurate and inaccurate.

Journalists should be aware of how these platforms work and how they can be used to spread misinformation.

They should also advocate for platform accountability and transparency.

The importance of media literacy education: Empowering the public with media literacy skills is essential for creating a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Media literacy education should be taught in schools and made available to people of all ages.

Journalism as a public service: At its best, journalism serves the public interest by providing accurate information, holding power accountable, and fostering informed debate.

By prioritising fact-checking and context, journalists can uphold these values and contribute to a more just and democratic society. We need to reinforce the idea that journalism is a vital public service, not just a business.

Questions

1. What is the primary role of journalism according to the text?
2. How does the author define a ‘fact’ in the context of journalism?
3. What are the four tests mentioned in the text that should be applied to information received by journalists?
4. Why is it important for journalists to add context to the facts they report?
5. How does the text illustrate the importance of context with the example of the TV series?
6. What mistake did the reporter make when reporting on the overturned bus, and what lesson does it teach about context?
7. How does the text suggest journalists should handle claims that are found to be untrue?
8. In what ways can journalists enhance the audience’s understanding of a news story?
9. What is the significance of verifying news sources according to the text?
10. How does the text differentiate between a claim and a fact?

Answers

1. The primary role of journalism is to gather information, ensure it is factual, and add context to enhance understanding.
2. A ‘fact’ is something known or proved to be true, used as evidence or part of a report, and distinct from interpretation.
3. The four tests are: source credibility, occurrence verification, evidence availability, and context understanding.
4. Adding context helps the audience fully understand the circumstances and implications of the facts reported.
5. The TV series example shows how context changes the understanding of events, illustrating the importance of background information.
6. The reporter mistook a film set for a real event, teaching the importance of verifying facts and understanding context.
7. Even untrue claims can be stories if they reveal underlying conflicts or issues that require investigation.
8. Journalists can enhance understanding by providing background, chronology, and profiles related to the news story.
9. Verifying news sources is crucial to ensure trustworthiness and accuracy in reporting.
10. A claim is an untested assertion, while a fact is verified and proven to be true.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: Fact-checking and adding context which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

If you found this helpful you might want to check our related training module ‘Beyond basic fact-checking‘.

The post Fact-checking and adding context first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Producing a piece of original journalism involves uncovering facts that, had it not been for you, would have remained hidden.

Your work will, however, probably include material that was already in the public domain; only your original idea and the final revelation might be new.

Journalists regularly have to refer to material created by others in the course of compiling a report.

Sometimes we get an idea for a follow up piece having seen an item on the TV news, heard something on the radio, spotted an interesting line in a newspaper, or been alerted to an event via social media.

In such cases, the original stimulation for following up a story comes from another source, which means that the story has not been created solely through our own original investigations, contacts, or research.

That doesn’t mean that the follow up piece you plan to write will be any less important; many great stories can be developed by reading what others have covered and finding a unique angle that has previously been missed.

We then embark on creating a new piece of content exploring the angle we want to focus.

That will become a piece of original journalism that will, hopefully, enhance the audience understanding of the issue being covered in a way that hasn’t been done before.

Original, copied, reworked

In another module on this site ‘Strategic forward planning for media organisations’ we looked at some of the sources of news available to media organisations, and underlined how it’s important to create original journalism.

We expanded on that theme in another module ‘Establishing a market differential with original journalism’ where we looked at how journalists can produce more than 10 original stories a week by investigating the issues that are of most concern to their own target audience.

But what should we do when we are following up stories created by others? What is the correct level of attribution? And how much of the original content should we use when mentioning the article to which we are referring?

These were some of the questions mailed to this site by a specialist writer asking advice on the best way to reference the work of others.

His skill is spotting angles in news stories and then producing detailed in-depth reports.

But he was unsure how to do so in a way that respects the original content, offers proper attribution, and avoids any suggestion of plagiarism.

Attribution for news sources

My own rule would be to use as little third-party material as possible.

Perhaps just refer to the headline and then sum up the gist of the article in one sentence, offering attribution and links where appropriate.

I would never copy any of the body text over to my own report unless I was offering a direct quote about what had been said.

Let’s look at how to follow up an angle to a story.

Say, for example, that there has been a fire at a clothing factory in which 350 people died.

The local newspaper claims the factory was a so-called ‘sweat shop’.

The reporter who wrote the piece had quotes from surviving workers that suggested there were inadequate employee safety regulations in force.

The newspaper reported eyewitness accounts that claimed that the factory floor was overcrowded, that emergency exits had been blocked with boxes of stock, and that the room was locked from the outside.

They claimed there was no health and safety training, and that many of the workers were non-registered and didn’t belong to trade unions.

There was no comment from the factory owners.

Let’s imagine you are an industrial correspondent who specialises in workplace safety and employer/employee relations. You read the line about safety and decide you would like to follow up the story.

You might feel compelled to write a headline ‘How safe is the clothing industry?’ in which you explore the issue and, in your piece, make reference to the original story that prompted you to investigate.

You might decide to write something like this:

“The Smallville Examiner’s report into the fire in a clothing factory that resulted in 350 deaths claimed that overcrowding and blocked emergency exits were part responsible for the high death toll.”

But is that safe?

The Smallville Examiner had included the name of the factory. They claimed to have spoken to the owner who, they reported, had said “no comment” when asked about safety conditions.

You haven’t spoken to the owner. So can you report the allegations and the response? Well of course you can, but is it safe to do so? Probably not.

The owner might be taking legal action against The Smallville Examiner. He or she might take legal action against you, too.

So, unless you have the time and resources to interview the owner, you had probably better keep it simple. Perhaps you would write something like this:

“Following the fire at a local clothing factory, which claimed the lives of 350 workers and was first reported in The Smallville Examiner (link to the report), we look at health and safety provision in the clothing industry and ask whether safety measures are tight enough.”

Here you have attributed the information to the source. You have briefly summarised what was reported, and you have provided a link. That’s probably all you should do at this point in terms of reference and attribution.

Now you can proceed with your piece.

In the case above you are simply reporting information which is already in the pubic domain.

You must not copy and paste another news organisation’s content, and you must not copy the text and then try to rework or paraphrase it in an attempt to make it look like your own.

You must respect the original source of the information and give full attribution.

Attribution for specific content

If you wanted to use a specific line from a quote in the piece on The Smallville Examiner you would have to go one step further.

If human rights activist and photojournalist, Floyd Boyd, speaking to The Smallville Examiner, was reported as saying that “while sifting through the charred remains of the factory I came across boxes of labels from well-known Western clothing outlets which showed they were benefitting from illegal working conditions”, you would need to do the following.

It would probably not be wise to write:

“The Smallville Examiner also carried an interview with a photojournalist who claimed to have seen ‘boxes of labels from well-known Western clothing outlets’ among the ‘charred remains’ of the factory.”

First of all it might not be true, secondly, those being accused might be preparing a fairly robust legal defence of the accusations.

What you could do is to try to contact Floyd Boyd to see whether he would confirm what he had said to The Smallville Examiner and expand on the point. He might even show you some of the pictures he took.

Once you have made contact, you could build on that interview and, gradually, make the story your own to the point that you could eventually drop any quotes from The Smallville Examiner and provide limited attribution, perhaps in the form of “in an issue first reported by The Smallville Examiner”.

Curation of content

Perhaps you want to do a form of ‘media review’ about an issue where you scour the web for information about a development.

You would need to make it clear at the beginning of your piece that it was a trawl of the most current references. So you would need to say something like:

• “Al Jazeera reports the story as [their headline goes here] in which they claim that [here you could paraphrase their main point and provide a link].”
• “Taking another view, The BBC claims that [their headline goes here] and they expand on the point to say [here you paraphrase the BBC line]” … and so on.

Tools for monitoring plagiarism

Plagiarism is rife. Many journalists just copy and paste. In some countries they genuinely seem to believe that copyright means they have a right to copy.

There are tools – many of them free – which help content producers check on plagiarism. Just search the web for the term ‘free plagiarism checker’ to see what’s available.

Some of these tools can actually tell how much of a piece of text has been reworked from the original and show percentage scores.

Some senior editors and sub editors working for major news sites actually copy and paste chunks of suspicious text into plagiarism checkers to make sure that the content they are being asked to approve is legitimate.

Social media

Of course social media turns all this on its head. Many rules are broken because:

1. often, those using social media are not journalists and don’t live by the rules of journalism, and …
2. the big news organisations are unlikely to chase after a blogger or someone posting on Facebook or Twitter because it’s probably not worth it.

But that means that those who attribute content to “being discussed on social media” have the extra burden of checking where the original source material came from, and how far down the information food-chain attribution applies.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, it’s far better to simply a) refer to sources, b) use extremely limited material in that reference, c) provide a link to the original material, and d) use as many qualifying words as you can without it looking silly – such as ‘according to’, ‘claims that’, ‘is reporting that’ etc.

Always try to make the story your own by finding your own sources revealing unknown facts – or interview those referred to in the original piece in order to find new angles on which to build your piece.

Most media organisations have the two independent sources rule. Even then, they will provide attribution to be on the safe side.

Does and don’ts

• Always check with your own senior editors and legal team to ensure you understand what your media organisation’s policy of attribution and referencing is.
• Never copy and paste the work of others.
• Always provide attribution.
• Never reversion or rework content to try to pass it off as your own.
• Always double-check facts, sources, quotes, places, times, dates etc
• Never accept what is written by others as fact.
• Always be honest about where you have found information.

Questions

1. What is the primary role of a journalist when producing a piece of original journalism?
2. How can journalists develop new stories from existing public domain material?
3. Why is it important for journalists to attribute sources when following up stories created by others?
4. What are some of the potential legal risks associated with reporting allegations without direct verification?
5. How can journalists ensure they are respecting the original content when referencing another news article?
6. What steps should a journalist take if they want to use a specific quote from another publication?
7. How does social media complicate the process of attributing sources in journalism?
8. What are some tools available to journalists to check for plagiarism in their work?
9. Why is it important for journalists to find their own sources and reveal previously unpublished facts in their stories?
10. What are some best practices for journalists to follow when referencing and attributing content from other sources?

Answers

1. The primary role of a journalist is to uncover facts that would have remained hidden without their investigation.
2. Journalists can develop new stories by finding unique angles in existing material and exploring those angles in a way that enhances the understanding of the audience.
3. Attribution is important to respect the original content, avoid plagiarism, and provide transparency about the source of information.
4. Reporting allegations without verification can lead to legal action from those being accused, especially if the information is not accurate.
5. Journalists should use minimal third-party material, provide proper attribution, and avoid copying or paraphrasing text to make it appear as their own.
6. Journalists should contact the original source to confirm any quotes and gather additional information to build their own story.
7. Social media complicates attribution because users often do not follow journalistic standards, and the original source of information can be difficult to trace.
8. There are free plagiarism checkers available online that help journalists ensure their content is original and not copied from other sources.
9. Finding their own sources and revealing unknown facts allows journalists to create original content and avoid relying solely on existing reports.
10. Best practices include referring to sources, using limited material, providing links to original content, and using qualifying language like “according to” or “claims that.”

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a lesson plan about Referencing, attribution and plagiarism which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

Related training modules

Establishing a market differential

Forward planning for media organisations

The post Attribution and plagiarism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This article was written for a group of young citizen reporters from remote rural communities in Zimbabwe who were learning how to become journalists.

The course, held in Harare, taught a group of enthusiastic newsgatherers from the Mobile Community Zimbabwe (MCZ) the skills needed to record, edit and broadcast stories about their neighbourhoods using their mobile phones. The week-long programme included teaching editorial ethics in order to help the reporters to produce accurate, factual, and impartial news reports about the issues that mattered most in their neighbourhoods.

The beauty of citizen reporting is that it can be fast and fresh, down-to-earth and uncomplicated, and, sometimes, reach areas not always covered by mainstream media.

It’s about reporting on something that people are concerned about, and presenting what they say in a way that those involved in the story can relate to.

It’s not meant to be complicated or to looking stunningly professional. It’s not meant to try to copy professional media.

It often involves producing a report on a topic that, had it not been for the person recording events with their mobile phone, the story would never have been told.

And, free from many of the technical obstacles that might otherwise hold back others, citizen reporters can sometimes offer a perspective lacking elsewhere.

That’s all good. It offers another take on life. A view that is often hyperlocal, put together by enthusiasts, journalism students, activists or amateurs, and carrying the authenticity of the learning curve.

However, if we are to take our citizen reporting to the next level, and, instead of just covering stories as we find them, attempt to inform the public debate, we need to weave in elements of journalistic best practice.

We need to move from citizen reporting to citizen journalism.

Citizen reporting – the basic version

Typically, this is how citizen reporting plays out.

You’ve either stumbled across an important story, or you have been alerted to something happening. You might see an everyday event that you feel needs to be covered.

Perhaps the issue is unofficial roadblocks in Zimbabwe, where young people are preventing motorists from using urban back roads to avoid police checkpoints. The youths are demanding money from drivers.

It could be widows living in a remote village who are working together to make and sell jam in order to help their community survive.

Both are important stories.

Now, you could just set off, take a few shots, talk to a couple of people and edit together a short piece of, say, 1’30” to 2’00” that shows what is happening.

That would be fine. People might like to see the roadblocks and hear from the people involved. They might like to watch the fruit being picked and the jam being made. Nothing wrong with that.

They are interesting stories, they are local, they might have been missed by mainstream media, and people might be interested in viewing them.

And when the stories are shared on social media, people will probably click on them and share them with their own social network.

But the question is, could you have done more?

Did you ask the right questions? Did you dig around a bit to try to expand on what you saw?

Most importantly, will your reporting make a difference? Does it matter?

The challenge is to produce a piece of meaningful journalism that informs the public debate.

Producing citizen journalism that matters

It’s all down to planning. Let’s start with the editorial content.

Before you set off, spend some time thinking through what you might need in order to explore all the angles of the story.

If you have a colleague or friend you can talk to, bounce some ideas around with them.

You should be hoping to find answers to the six essential questions all reporters should be ready to ask. Those questions are what, why, when, how, where and who.

Below are a few ways these simple questions could help uncover information that might not otherwise surface from an ordinary interview.

• What: What is cause? What is the impact? What is the cost?
• Why: Why is it happening? Why does it matter? Why are people concerned?
• When: When did it happen? When will it be fixed? When will we know?
• How: How did it happen? How long will it take? How much did/will it cost?
• Where: Where did it happen? Where is the evidence? Where are those responsible?
• Who: Who is involved? Who is doing something about it? Who is affected?

You will probably think up many different variations on these six questions. But just considering these questions will ensure you are far better prepared than if you simply head off to the scene, smartphone in hand, trying to find someone who is willing to talk to you.

And asking just some of these six questions will also mean that when you return to edit your piece, you will have more interesting material to work with. You might also uncover a valuable news angle so that you can revisit the story in the future.

There is nothing worse than returning from covering a story and realising you forgot to ask a crucial question.

Ensuring your citizen reporting looks good

Once you have planned your piece, you need to give some thought to the technical requirements.

What shots will you need? How will your piece start? This is often called the ‘establishing shot’ – which is the first few frames that introduce your audience to the story.

You will need to think about what ‘cutaway shots’ you might need. These are the short clips of detail that you might want to use to emphasis a point, cover an edit, or simply break up a longer shot.

And what shots might you need to end the piece? What image will work best with your final sentence?

Think all these things through before you go – or as you travel to the scene – and you will save yourself so much grief when you come to edit the piece later.

Give some thought to what sound effects might you need. It’s always good to shoot some background noise – ambient sound (sometimes called wild track) that can be used to help bridge edits when you return to your desk.

And gather enough material. Far better to have too many opening shots, details shots, close up shots and spare ambient sounds than not have enough.

Now we have content that is editorially and technically strong, we can start to piece together our report. This is where the citizen reporter starts to become a citizen journalist. See Interviewing for video journalists.

Adding context is essential

This next step is adding context. Context often answers the “So What?” question.

Numbers, data, statistics, history, geography and time are all valuable elements for adding context.

For example, let’s take the story of a fatal traffic accident on the road between Gweru and Bulawayo. A coach crashes. Many are killed and others are injured.

To put this story in context we need two of the elements listed above; numbers and history. Statistics would be good, too, but they might be hard to obtain.

Let’s keep it simple and start with the first two.

We need to find out how many are dead or injured. We also need to try to find out whether this is the worst accident of its kind, or whether it’s a common occurrence.

We need to find out how many such accident happen each year. Is this the worst year on record?

Numbers give us context. Without context the story lacks depth. Without depth we are not fully informing the public debate.

We can still do the story without the context. That’s fine. That is straightforward citizen reporting.

Publishing such a story is of value, and you might want to publish the raw version in the first instance to cover the breaking news story of the traffic accident. If so, go ahead, get a version out. Share it on social media. Let people know what is happening.

That’s a fine example of citizen reporting. However, a citizen journalist would want to develop the story. In mainstream media terms, they would now be covering the developing story.

Citizen journalists need to think through the story development angles.

Jot down a rough story plan

Before you set off, try to piece together a rough story plan.

Write down what you think the top line might be. Set out the questions you might want to ask. Think of the numbers you will need in order to add essential context, such as: How many? How much? How often? How long?

Consider where will you find two independent sources to help verify the story.

Imagine what you will need when you return in order to edit the piece.

List all the elements you will require. Far better to think these things through now, before you get to the scene, than kick yourself later for missing them.

You need to think of as many story angles and hooks as possible.

Write down all the possible related follow up stories that might be needed to fully explain what has happened. If you have time, research the background to the story.

Search online, post questions on social media, try to gather as much information as possible, preferably before, but also after, you shoot the material.

A well-researched piece will be more likely to inform the audience than a first-impression piece. See How to create a structured news report.

Is the journalism you are producing ethical?

Next you need to check whether your work is ethically sound. Have a look at Why editorial ethics are important and read through some of the training articles on that page.

Here are some of the main points to keep in mind.

• Is your story accurate and fair?
• Have you got your facts right?
• What about names? Have you got the right spelling? You may have to add text to your video to introduce the person. Ensure you get them to spell out their name and their title.
• Have you inflated or promoted any information or angles to try to make things sound more or less dramatic than they really are? You must never dramatise information to try to sell the story to your audience.

Is your story impartial and objective?

Did you manage to leave your own emotions at home, or did you take them with you when you shot the piece? Are you telling the story as it is, or are you pushing one particular line because you feel strongly about it?

You might feel passionate about an issue, but you must always rise above what you think in order to present the reality of the situation as it is. Doing so enables those who view your piece to make their own assessment of what is happening without being influenced by your particular take on things.

Have you tried to include different voices to reflect as many sides of the issue as possible? Have you treated people equally? Could you be accused of favouring one side in the story?

See our article on objectivity and impartiality.

What about privacy and consent?

Do those you are talking to know how the material might be used? Do they realise it will be shared on social media and, hopefully, go global?

Could your filming be an invasion of their privacy? Are they okay with that?

What about the vulnerable? Are you thinking of interviewing minors or people with learning difficulties? Have you got consent from their carers?

You may not need that consent if you are carrying out random interviews in the street – sometimes called vox pops – but you should seek it if you are talking one-to-one with someone who could be described as being vulnerable and who may not understand the consequences of what they are saying.

See our article on privacy and consent.

Taste and decency matters, too

Also, keep in mind that the pictures you are shooting, and the audio you are recording, will be seen by people of all ages.

Consider whether any images are too graphic. Could they upset, offend and disturb some in your audience?

Are there other ways you can shoot footage to tell the story without being too graphic?

Have you included some images that disturbed you when filming them? Is there anything gratuitous about your piece?

Always err on the side of caution. If you feel uneasy then your audience will probably feel uncomfortable, too.

And finally, uphold your integrity

• Is what you have produced a true and fair reflection of what you witnessed?
• Is it free from your own emotions and opinions?
• Have you been honest with those you interviewed, your audience, and yourself?
• Can you stand by what you intend to publish?
• Can you return to the scene, look people in the face and justify your actions?

If the answer to any of the above is ‘no’, then take a fresh look at your script, the clips you have chosen, the top line you selected, and the conclusion you have reached.

And be prepared to rework the whole package to ensure it really is a piece of informative journalism, rather than another item that adds to the the noise and confusion surrounding the issue you planned to cover.

See integrity for journalists.

Packing your bags before you go

On the practical level, there are some basics that you need to consider before heading off to shoot a story. Here are 10 considerations. You will probably be able to jot down more.

1. Is your phone fully charged, and have you packed your charger?
2. Have you got enough credit on your phone?
3. Does someone know where you are going?
4. Check latest news reports to see if the situation has escalated.
5. Have you assessed all the dangers?
6. Are you about to take any risks?
7. Could anyone object to you filming and want to stop you?
8. Have you enough cash with you?
9. Are you dressed appropriately (you don’t want to stand out)?
10. What might be a follow-up angle to the story?

What to do when you get to the scene

Look around, absorb, sense the mood, watch what people are doing before they realise you are covering the story.

Take lots of wild track – if nothing else, it will come in useful if you need to edit sound effects under some of your shots when you are putting the piece together.

Identify those you want to interview, talk to them, win their trust, explain who you are and how the material will be used – including how you plan to share the story on social media.

Check the background lighting and the background sound. If needed, ask the interviewee to move slightly so that the material you shoot is good enough to use.

If it’s windy consider putting a piece of sticking plaster over the microphone on your smartphone to reduce the wind noise.

Be ready to deal with knock backs

A common issue facing citizen journalists is that people sometimes refuse to talk, especially officials.

You might approach a police officer, ambulance worker, or fire officer and ask for details about an incident.

They might ask for accreditation: “Who are you and who do you work for,” they might say.

You might not be accredited. You might be a freelance working for yourself. As a result, they might refuse to talk to you.

The same is true with government officials. They might ask you to submit your questions in writing to their office and tell you that they will get back to you.

That’s just tough.

You probably won’t be able to change that attitude, so don’t bother wasting your time trying.

Instead, use your ingenuity and news sense to seek out other voices that will help you substantiate your story.

All you need to worry about is finding two independent sources to verify the information you are about to publish.

Those sources don’t need to be senior officials, they don’t need to be people in authority. It would be nice if you could talk to someone in those positions, but other voices will work.

Keep asking around, talk to more people, seek out disparate voices that can offer diverse perspectives.

Continue until you have those two sources.

At that point, you are ready to edit your piece of unique, in-depth, citizen journalism. And, if you have reached that point, well done.

The post Citizen reporting to citizen journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Every news story needs at least one reliable source that is able to share information that helps the journalist get to the facts.
Most news stories start with one source. That’s fine. The job of the journalist is to verify the information shared and then find at least one other source that can confirm what we have been told, or who can refute any claims made.

Typically, for a piece of information to be accepted as a fact, a journalist will require confirmation from two independent sources.

Our first source might be the publication of a document. It could be a person who has been involved in an incident or a witness to that incident.

It could be the publication of information through a news release. It could be something we have read in a newspaper, heard on the radio, seen on TV, or picked up on social media.

There are many forms of news sources. But if we have just one, we don’t really have a solid and reliable news story.

A second, independent source

The challenge for all journalists putting together a news story is finding the second source.

For more complex, in-depth pieces, we often require a third and fourth news source, with each offering deeper insight about the issue being covered.

Let’s look at an example.

We hear of flooding in a village on the outskirts of Gweru, Zimbabwe. A local reporter goes to the scene.

They talk to Grace, a mother of four, who is found sitting outside the flooded remains of her home.

Grace talks first-hand about what happened overnight. She tells us that it is the third season running that her home has been washed away. And she claims the local authority has failed to take preventive action following the previous incidents.

Grace also claims that local residents fear a cholera outbreak because the flooding has caused raw human sewage to mix with the village’s water supply.

Clearly, this is an important story that needs to be told. And Grace is making some strong points.

We know, from what we can see, that there has been some devastating flooding overnight. When Grace says her home has been washed away we can see the evidence to support that claim. We can also see children playing in the polluted water around the damaged homes.

It seems the elements of the story are all there. In this case we probably don’t need a second source to confirm the flooding happened, it’s fairly obvious. A second voice would be good, perhaps another resident who has been affected.

But we do need at least one more source to respond to some of the claims Grace has made.

What if people in authority won’t talk to us?

Has the local authority failed to take action following previous flooding? We need to talk to a local authority representative.

But what if they won’t talk to us? In that case we need to talk to at least one more local resident who can support the claim that the local authority has failed to take appropriate action.

We also need to inform the local authority that, if they are unwilling to talk to us for whatever reason, we will need to make that clear in our piece.

We can do this in several ways, but a simple line saying “We approached the local authority but nobody was available to comment” might work.

Then we need to consider Grace’s claim that local residents fear a cholera outbreak.

Do they? We need to talk to a few more to see if this is a genuine fear, and, if it is, why. It could be that there has been an outbreak in the past. We need this information. And we need someone to confirm it.

Ideally, we need to find a local doctor, health worker, or a spokesperson from a health NGO working in this field, who can talk about the risks.

For our script, we need to be careful to understand the difference between the two words ‘fear’ and ‘face’. Grace may ‘fear’ a cholera outbreak, but does the village ‘face’ one?

We can report the fact that people ‘fear’ an outbreak, but, until we have our second source verifying that ‘fear’ we can’t say the village ‘faces’ an outbreak.

In this case, our important second source could change the whole focus of the story from a human tragedy story about Grace having her home washed away, to a potentially more serious story about a village facing a cholera outbreak.

The second source, having confirmed that the health risk fear could become a reality, means that we now need to go back to the local authority with a second question.

The first was to ask them what they are doing about the flooding. The second is to ask what they are planning to do about the health risks (which we have now been able to confirm with the local doctor or the NGO).

Data and statistics

Sources can also take the form of data/statistics/numbers. In the example of the flooding in the village near Gweru, we need numbers and dates.

How many times has this area been flooded? How many homes were washed away last year? How many people contracted cholera? If the local authority won’t talk to us, we should approach the local MP. If s/he won’t talk to us, then a village elder. If they won’t talk to us we need to talk to the relevant health authority.

Put simply, a journalist has to accept that some sources will refuse to comment, but we must never take a refusal to comment as a means of killing a story. Some with vested interests will want that outcome. They will be hoping that by repeating “no comment’ we will go away and the story will be forgotten. We need to continue to look for those second and third sources to verify the information we are compiling.

Producing informative journalism

Numbers are important, too, for making sense of what we are being told by our first, single source.

For example, let’s take another story, this one about young people on the outskirts of Harare recycling metal from the city dump.

Our reporter goes along and sees people separating various metals, melting some over a fire, and turning out pots and pans from the recycled material.

The reporter is told that young people “make a living from the city dump”. But what does that mean?

Using numbers to understand what we see

We need numbers. Numbers provide context. Context answers the “so what?” question. Most news stories need to answer the “so what?” question.

How long does a pan take to make? How much do the pots and pans sell for? How many do they sell in a day? What can that amount of money buy? Can it provide a day’s shelter and food for one person?

We could simply report that young people are recycling metal from the city dump making pots and pans that they sell. That’s of interest. It’s a reflection of life. But, as far as journalism is concerned, it’s just touching on the real story. And our job, as journalists, is to dig a bit deeper to add context and meaning – in fact to add the “so what?” factor.

Once we have the numbers about how many pots are produced, what they sell for, and what that money can buy, the story takes on a new meaning.

Through asking these questions we find out that young people are perhaps earning a living through scrap, perhaps able to feed a family of four for a week with one day’s work.

Now we can honestly claim that young people “make a living from the city dump”.

Numbers, second sources, and added information provide the context that turns an observation into a piece of journalism.

Let’s always seek out the second source. Let’s decide that we will never allow a refusal to comment to be used to prevent us from finding an alternative second source, or worse still lead to us dropping the story. And let’s also commit to finding the numbers that add the essential context and answer the “so what?” question that we should always be aiming to answer.

This module was written for trainee journalists in Zimbabwe who were keen to learn how to produce in-depth video reports about life in their remote rural communities. 

The post News sources and the ‘so what’ factor first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Seeking out new angles on a breaking, developing or running news story is an important part of the editorial process.Journalists have a responsibility to think through and explain how news developments affect the lives of their audience.

This process often takes place in news meetings where editorial staff discuss the implications of events in order to decide which deserve further investigation.

However, a journalist working alone will often have to work out the most important angles for themselves.

How a story develops

News stories break in many ways. Sometimes the first we hear of a story is on the news wires or via a news (press) release.

At other times a journalist will have been digging around a topic and will have come up with information that deserves further investigation.

At this stage, we often have just one or two facts. Our job is to find out more. As we do, the story develops.

Eventually, we would hope to publish a comprehensive and informative report with all angles covered. So, let’s see how this works.

Digging deeper

This is important for unearthing and following up on important news angles.

In today’s fast-paced news cycle, journalists face the constant challenge of not just reporting the news, but also digging deeper to uncover the stories behind the headlines.

Finding and following up on important news angles is crucial for impactful journalism that informs the public and holds power accountable.

1. Cultivate curiosity and a nose for news

• The foundation of finding compelling angles lies in genuine curiosity. Journalists should constantly ask “why?” and “what if?“
• Develop a habit of reading widely, not just mainstream news, but also academic journals, local blogs, and community forums.
• Pay attention to whispers and rumours – sometimes they point to bigger stories. A keen observation of your community and its dynamics is essential.

2. Go beyond the news release

Too often, journalists rely solely on news (press) releases and official statements. These are starting points, but they are not the whole story. Treat them with healthy skepticism. Ask:

• Who is benefiting from this narrative?
• What information is missing?

Always seek independent verification and diverse perspectives.

3. Develop sources and cultivate relationships

• Reliable sources are an important part of all journalism. Build relationships with people in positions of power, as well as those affected by their decisions. This takes time and effort.
• Attend community events, network, and demonstrate genuine interest in their stories.
• Always protect your sources’ anonymity when necessary. A well-placed source can provide invaluable insights and tip you off to hidden stories.

4. Follow the money

• “Follow the money” is a classic journalistic adage for a reason.
• Financial trails often lead to corruption, hidden agendas, and systemic problems.
• Learn how to access and analyse public records, campaign finance disclosures, and corporate filings. Understanding financial flows can illuminate the motivations behind events and decisions.

5. Embrace data journalism

• Data is a powerful tool for uncovering trends and patterns.
• Learn basic data analysis skills and explore publicly available datasets.
• Visualising data can make complex issues more accessible to the public and reveal compelling stories that might otherwise remain hidden.

6. Don’t be afraid to ask difficult questions

• Holding power accountable requires courage.
• Don’t shy away from asking tough questions, even to powerful individuals or institutions.
• Be persistent, but also respectful.
• Prepare thoroughly for interviews and anticipate potential pushback.
• The public deserves to know the truth, and it’s your job to seek it out.

7. Collaborate and share information

• Journalism is not a solitary pursuit. Collaborate with other journalists, both within your organisation and beyond.
• Sharing information and expertise can lead to bigger and more impactful stories.
• Consider joining investigative journalism networks and attending workshops to learn new skills and connect with colleagues.

8. Stay persistent and patient

• Investigative journalism takes time and dedication. Don’t get discouraged if your initial leads don’t pan out.
• Be prepared to spend weeks, months, or even years pursuing a story. Persistence and patience are vital if you are to uncover important news angles.

9. Think long-term and consider the bigger picture

• Don’t just focus on the immediate news. Think about the long-term implications of events and decisions.
  • How will they affect the community?
  • What are the systemic issues at play?
• By considering the bigger picture, you can uncover stories that have lasting significance.

10. Be ethical and transparent

• Integrity is paramount. Adhere to the highest ethical standards in your reporting.
• Be transparent about your methods and sources.
• Correct any errors promptly and acknowledge any conflicts of interest.
• Building trust with the public is essential for the credibility of your work.

Finding and following up on important news angles is challenging but rewarding. By cultivating curiosity, developing sources, embracing data, and asking difficult questions, journalists can play a vital role in informing the public and holding power accountable.

Questions

• What is the primary responsibility of journalists when reporting on news developments
• How do news stories typically break, and what role do news wires and news (press) releases play in this process?
• Why is cultivating curiosity important for journalists seeking compelling news angles?
• What are some strategies journalists can use to go beyond the information provided in news releases?
• How can developing sources and cultivating relationships benefit journalists in their reporting?
• Explain the significance of the phrase “follow the money” in journalism.
• What role does data journalism play in uncovering news stories, and what skills are essential for it?
• Why is it important for journalists to ask difficult questions, and how should they prepare for potential pushback?
• How can collaboration among journalists lead to more impactful stories?
• Discuss the importance of ethics and transparency in journalism and how they contribute to building public trust.

Answers

• Journalists are responsible for explaining how news developments affect the lives of their audience.
• News stories often break through news wires or press releases, serving as initial sources of information.
• Curiosity drives journalists to ask questions and explore deeper stories beyond surface-level information.
• Journalists should treat news releases with skepticism, seek independent verification, and explore diverse perspectives.
• Building relationships with sources can provide journalists with valuable insights and access to hidden stories.
• “Follow the money” suggests that financial investigations can reveal corruption and hidden agendas.
• Data journalism uses data analysis to uncover trends and patterns, requiring skills in data analysis and visualisation.
• Asking difficult questions holds power accountable; journalists should prepare thoroughly and anticipate resistance.
• Collaboration allows journalists to share information and expertise, leading to more comprehensive and impactful stories.
• Ethics and transparency ensure credibility and trust, as they involve adhering to standards and being open about methods.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: News angles which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

The post Developing important news angles first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalists who want to inform the audience need to keep records so that they can add context to breaking news stories without having to rely on others for background information.

In the past these records were in the form of newspaper cuttings and notes. Now, in the digital age, tools exist to make the task easier. But the basic principles of keeping records has not changed.

Keeping records has always been an integral part of our newsgathering. Technological advances have merely simplified the task of finding, storing, enhancing, publishing, and sharing valuable news assets.

Before computers

When I started as a newspaper journalist, in the days before the internet, I was always looking for information that might prove to be useful in the future.

I had folders of news cuttings which were stored in boxes in my flat. The boxes were filled with articles which I had come across while reading other newspapers and magazines.

I also kept notes, scribbled down while I’d been listening to radio and watching TV bulletins.

Each item was a reminder of something I had found interesting, and which I felt might come in useful in the future.

I had my stack of my reporter notebooks with every fact, note, interview and observation safely stored.

There were carbon copies of every typed story I had written for the newspaper. They were bound in elastic bands and dated.

Keeping copies and records was a newspaper house rule which was put in place for legal and follow-up reasons.

I also had stacks of scrapbooks containing newspaper cuttings of my own work. That was my version of the modern-day online archive; my related stories, if you like.

My newspaper had its own ‘diary-and-file’ cabinet. An office junior would spend all day cutting up articles and filing them away for future use. Each would be labelled and indexed.

If an article covered more than one issue, another copy of the newspaper would have to be cut up so that the content could be filed in more than one category.

If there were important articles printed back-to-back, two more newspapers had to be clipped, and so on.

Cutting up newspapers with scissors and then sticking them to paper with glue was time consuming but it was important because the records we were keeping ended up in a reference library of files available for all staff to use.

Knowing what to keep

It’s important to know who is going to benefit from your the material you are gathering.  This will help you decide what to save, what to invest time and effort in developing, and how to present the resulting material.

A journalist covering a specialism (also known as a beat or a patch) will probably find it easier to decide what records to collect. A general reporter may find it more difficult.

However, all journalists should have areas they are interested in and all should understand the needs of their audience.

So gathering material based on your interests and the needs of your audience is a good starting point.

Knowing why we keep it

We keep records because it’s part of our job to inform the public debate. To do that we need to add context to the information we produce with sourced, verified and attributed material.

In a breaking news situation we will probably be dealing with the latest facts only.

But as the story develops, or if we are carrying out an in-depth investigation, we will need to dig deep in order to reference material that will enrich our coverage and enhance the understanding of those consuming it. That is why we need to keep records.

The content we keep must have the potential to add value to our work or to help those we are working with better understand an issue.

Ideally we will know something about the topic. We will add information and then share. By doing so, those who had not seen the original item, and who may have not thought about the line you have developed or expanded upon, might benefit.

There may be a sentence buried deep in an article that is particularly relevant to something you are working on. You can then point to that element and share just that point.

Keeping records helps you unearth gems, polish them and display them for all to see

When I started in journalism I was encouraged by my news editor to have my own storage system which started off as the bottom draw in my desk in the newsroom. There cuttings would relate to ongoing stories that would need following up.

Once a story was no longer current I would move the cuttings to the box in my flat.

I would also contribute to the joint record-keeping effort of my newsroom colleagues by suggesting material to be stored in the filing cabinet in the office.

Later, when I moved to the BBC, there was a department called ‘News Information’ which you could ring up to ask for cuttings. The department had staff whose job it was to store copies of every story for future reference.

Now, there are many great tools, most free to use, that offer different storage and collaboration benefits.

When I worked in newspapers, keeping records was a part of everyday life. However, apart from the material we shared in the office filing system, our own systems were very much a personal thing based on the topics were had invested time and effort covering.

Choosing what to keep

You need editorial focus, audience awareness, and time.

When I worked on my first newspaper I wouldn’t clip every article. A clipping had to have value. It had to be about an issue I was investigating, a developing story in which I would invest more time researching, and, more importantly, information that would help me produce better journalism for those who read the newspaper I worked for.

So my early cuttings had a clear editorial and audience focus. I needed to know who my readers were and what issues kept them awake at night worrying.

Working on a small town newspaper in the north of England made that fairly easy; we rubbed shoulders with the people who read our journalism every day, and so we understood the issues that concerned them most.

So my advice is to draw up a list of the the topics that interest you. Set these categories in whatever online storage tools you are using. Don’t take on too much. Start off by selecting only that content you think you are likely to return to, or which you think may be of use to those in your social network.

If you find something of interest, consider sharing it and inviting others to contribute. Many of the online storage sites will enable others to make suggestions about what you have collected.

If others join in, you could end up with a rich repository of the most valuable information on a topic.

However you don’t want to get swamped. It’s no use storing material if you can’t find it when you need it. Tag items carefully so that you can retrieve any information when you need it.

Today, we have the luxury of tools that enable us to grab anything we see online, store it, tag it, add notes to it and file it. It’s the same end result as keeping records in the days before computers, but it’s faster, neater, and more useful.

What we didn’t have in my old newspaper office was the ability to share cuttings in an instant, and, in doing so, invite others to add their perspectives and share it with their friends.

We would have to work on the material, make phone calls, knock on doors, sit on doorsteps and follow people round to get the quotes and angles needed to be able to create a professional piece of journalism.

That could take days. Then the piece would be submitted to the news editor, the sub-editor, and the editor, printed, distributed, and then read.

And, presumably, once our newspaper was out on the street, someone was probably starting the whole cycle again with our material, cutting it up, referring to the pieces, reusing the material, expanding on it, etc – an early form of viral news dissemination.

Questions

1. What are the primary reasons journalists keep records?
2. How did technological advances change the way journalists keep records?
3. Describe the process of record-keeping in a newspaper office before the digital age.
4. What role does audience awareness play in a journalist’s decision on what records to keep?
5. Explain the importance of having a personal storage system for journalists.
6. How should decide what content to keep?
7. Discuss the benefits of using online storage tools for record-keeping in journalism.
8. What is the risk of not keeping accurate records?
9. Evaluate the impact of digital tools on the speed and efficiency of journalistic record-keeping.
10. Synthesise the key elements that contribute to effective record-keeping for journalists in the digital age.

Answers

1. Journalists keep records to add context to breaking news stories, inform public debate, and enrich coverage with sourced, verified, and attributed material.
2. Technological advances have simplified finding, storing, enhancing, publishing, and sharing news assets, making the task of record-keeping easier.
3. Before the digital age, record-keeping involved cutting up newspapers, storing articles in files, and maintaining personal notebooks and scrapbooks.
4. Audience awareness helps journalists decide what records to keep by focusing on topics that interest their readers and address their concerns.
5. A personal storage system allows journalists to organise and access information relevant to ongoing stories and personal interests.
6. Journalists should focus on editorial priorities, audience needs, and the potential value of content when deciding what to keep.
7. Online storage tools offer benefits like easy access, collaboration, tagging, and sharing, enhancing the efficiency of record-keeping.
8. If a journalist fails to keep records they could be lacking essential information needed to add context and meaning to a breaking news story.
9. Digital tools have increased the speed and efficiency of record-keeping by allowing instant storage, retrieval, and sharing of information.
10. Effective record-keeping involves editorial focus, audience awareness, use of digital tools, and collaboration to create a valuable information repository.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: ‘Keeping records‘ which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

The post The importance of keeping records first appeared on Media Helping Media.