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.

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.

Sources are one of the most valuable resources for a journalist. They need to be handled with care in order to build trust and gain knowledge.

Without sourced information, the reports produced may end up being padded with rumour and personal opinion – and that isn’t journalism. But what about dealing with suspects as news sources? Don Ray shares his experience.

Note: The following article by Don Ray was originally written in American English. It is published here, with permission, in English English which is the MHM house-style. Don looks at how to deal with suspects as sources.

20 ways suspects can help a journalist

The following is my tip sheet – “The Source Whisperer” – where I set out how I have interviewed suspects or criminals in the course of my investigative journalism in order to unearth valuable information.

1. He gives you videotapes of the crime taking place, confesses on camera and names his accomplices.
2. She confesses on camera, names her accomplices and takes you to the scene of the crime.
3. He confesses on camera and names his accomplices.
4. She confesses on camera and takes you to the scene of the crime.
5. He confesses on camera with full face.
6. She confesses on camera in silhouette or otherwise disguised.
7. He confesses off camera and gives you permission to use the confession.
8. She gives you important information about the case, but off camera.
9. He goes on camera, full face, but doesn’t confess. He either lies or refuses to answer.
10. She goes on camera in silhouette or otherwise disguised, but she lies or refuses to answer.
11. He allows you to videotape him walking or working, but doesn’t sit down for an interview.
12. She provides you with photographs or video of herself and gives you permission to use them.
13. He confirms information unrelated to his actual involvement, i.e. information about others.
14. She confirms that, indeed, there’s an investigation, but will not comment on it.
15. He will not talk on the record, but draws you a map that leads you to important information.
16. She will not talk on the record, but confirms that she is, indeed, the person you’re looking for.
17. He will not talk on the record now, but leaves the door open to talk later.
18. She will not talk on the record, but will allow you to call again.
19. He will not even talk to you, but doesn’t threaten your life.
20. She will not even talk to you, except to threaten your life.

Related articles

Why would anyone want to talk to a journalist?

How to investigate official documents

The investigative journalism dossier

The post Dealing with suspects as news sources first appeared on Media Helping Media.