It’s a cliché to say clichés exist for a reason. As journalists, we’re supposed to avoid them like the, um, plague. But it’s useful to have a catchy phrase that can stick in someone’s mind, particularly if you’re trying to spread knowledge or change behaviour.
This week I began cataloguing some of my own sayings about accuracy — you can consider them aspiring clichés — and other phrases I find helpful or instructive in preparation for a workshop I’m giving with The Huffington Post’s Mandy Jenkins at next week’s Online News Association conference. Our session is called B.S. Detection for Online Journalists. The goal is to equip participants with tools, tips, and knowledge to get things right, and weed out misinformation and hoaxes before they spread them.
So, with apologies to Bill Maher, I offer some new, some old, and some wonderfully clichéd rules for doing accurate journalism. Keep these in your head and they’ll help you do good work.
The initial, mistaken information will be retweeted more than any subsequent correction — I’ve started calling this the Law of Incorrect Tweets. The point is to emphasize that a piece of misinformation is often far more appealing and interesting than the subsequent correction. People are therefore more inclined to retweet or like a false news report than to pay attention to any subsequent correction. Be careful with the information gets pushed out, and be diligent about repeatedly offering a correction. This is especially true with social media, but the principle—invest time in spreading corrections—is universal.
A journalist is only as good as her sources — We often encounter a source who spins a great story, only to later discover he or she was lying to us. Or, well, spinning. Since we rely on sources to build our reporting and inform us and the public, the quality and diversity of sources is hugely important. So make the effort to find the best sources possible. This is where the next favorite saying of mine comes in to play.
Verification before dissemination — Our job is to apply the discipline of verification to everything we gather. That means checking what a source tells you before putting it out there. It means holding off on that hot bit of news to make an extra phone call or bit of checking before sending it out. It’s the core of what we do. Too often we are enticed by the glory promised by dissemination. Which leads me to my next rule
People will forget who got it first, but they remember who got it wrong — Scoops are almost never as impactful and glory-filled as they seem. Apart from Woodward and Bernstein, who were turned into Hollywood characters, how many other journalists are widely known among the general population thanks to a big scoop? I would wager very few. But names like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass and Janet Cooke seem to endure in the public’s mind. So too do the names of news organizations who push out false or incorrect information about a big story. For example, how many people had heard of What’s Trending before CBS pulled its backing over an erroneous tweet from the show? When you sacrifice verification for a scoop, you set yourself up to win the worst kind of glory.
Failure sucks but instructs — This is a saying from management professor and bestselling author Bob Sutton. He lauded the value of failure in a post for the Harvard Business Review: “In fact, there is no learning without failure — and this includes failing at dangerous things like surgery and flying planes. Discovery of the moves that work well is always accompanied by discovery of moves that don’t.” We must do everything we can to avoid factual errors and spreading misinformation. But, at the same time, we must remember that we will make mistakes. And that’s when we have to move past the shame and anger and figure out how to turn our mistakes into valuable lessons. That’s how you stop making the same mistakes, how you get better.
- 1
- 2
>> It’s a cliché to say clichés exist for a reason. As journalists, we’re supposed to avoid them like the, um, plague. But it’s useful to have a catchy phrase..."
The article starts with not one, but two clichés in a row. Yeah, I know, I must be a curmudgeon. But I really don't think it gives the article a jaunty tone. Instead it makes it feel like high school paper written at the very last minute.
The article could start with "It’s useful..." and nothing of value would be lost.
>> Those are my maxims. What about you?
Let's see... I try to avoid clichés and the word "suck". Oh, and...
>> particularly if you’re trying to spread knowledge or change behaviour.
...I'm only human and fail some of the time - but try to not write anything that sounds like maxims from self-help books. I wonder if the "Chicken Soup" books have a journalism edition. I really, really wonder.
Is behavior different if it's written "behaviour"?
#1 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 04:43 PM
These are excellent Craig. I would add this: It's not about what you know. It's about what you can prove.
CNET broke a story two weeks ago about Apple losing an unreleased iPhone, the second lost unreleased iPhone in two years. CNET also reported that the police were involved in helping search for the device. The piece offered lots of details but the day after the story ran, lots of people started questioning its veracity. Apple reps wouldn't comment and the police initially said they couldn't find any record of a search described in the story.
Two days later, the police flip flopped and confirmed the story's accuracy. Nonetheless, the lesson is that just knowing information is accurate isn't enough. Readers want proof. Generally, it's better to hold off publishing until you can provide that proof.
#2 Posted by Greg Sandoval, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 04:55 PM
" Generally, it's better to hold off publishing until you can provide that proof."
Rule No. 9 -- please send to Joe McGinness and Garry Trudeau.
Also the bozos who keep comparing the USA to Japan/Germany/S. Korea, etc. -- yo, the USA is bigger -- duh.
Also the NBC News tear-jerkers about government worker layoffs -- yo, hundreds applied for those jobs -- where were the tears, then? Duh.
#3 Posted by Donald Blake, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 07:16 PM
Rule 1. Be aware of your own biases and compensate for them in your work.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 07:43 PM
It was named the City News Bureau. The link had had it wrong, too.
#5 Posted by john tuohy, CJR on Sat 17 Sep 2011 at 08:02 AM
"In this case, he line is great..." should be "In this case, his line is great...". Now re-tweet your article!
#6 Posted by Correctorama, CJR on Sat 17 Sep 2011 at 11:06 AM
In the 1960's Newsweek had an advertisng campaign with the tag line, "Newsweek seperates fact from opinion."
A similar thought was expressed by C.P. Scott, Editor of the Manchester Guardian.
"Comment is free but facts are sacred".
#7 Posted by David Reno, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 10:49 AM
Avoid jargon if you expect to be taken seriously.
#8 Posted by Jerry Kavanagh, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 12:24 PM
Copy edit! Noticed a few typos. Good article though.
#9 Posted by Lauren Gillett, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 05:14 PM
You have to effing kidding me. Anywhere but here, on this page, posted by COLUMBIA SOCIALIST UNIVERSITY. Rules for journalism? YOU destroyed Journalism and turned into JournOlism. Muther effers. DEFUND COLUMBIA.
SUIBNE
#10 Posted by suibne, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 08:03 PM
I've always heard the City News Service axiom as “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” That's a bit more "rhythmic" than your rendering.
#11 Posted by Len Iwanski, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 09:15 PM
My previous post should read "City News Bureau."
#12 Posted by Len Iwanski, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 09:19 PM
How about include a link to your soy re if it is a press release, study, poll, scientific article, blog post, or another article.
Or if your source is a press release about a 20 page study read the study as well as the press release.
And only retards try to hide their biases. Just be honest about where you stand. Readers trust honesty not fake blandness
#13 Posted by Timothywmurray, CJR on Tue 20 Sep 2011 at 09:09 PM
If you quote a survey or statistics as a fact, always link to the survey or the statistics. If You are unable to find what's wrong with the numbers, your readers will...
#14 Posted by Ole Orset, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 12:33 PM
Include the MediaBugs "report an error" button for each story...
#15 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 04:49 PM
A good book on this is called "Blur" by Kovach and Rosenstiel.
My own rules to add to yours:
1. Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh
2. Don't watch Fox "News."
#16 Posted by Rich S., CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 10:49 AM
surely mentioning Bill Maher in the first paragraph discredits everything you say? He's one of the most aweful journalists to walk the earth. In his 'documentary; religulous, he doesn't even let his interviewees speak, 'drowning them in his own gargantuan ego
#17 Posted by ALamb, CJR on Mon 31 Oct 2011 at 01:06 AM