In discussing when and how to use sources we find online, be it on a discussion board or on a forum or off of a listserv, we mentioned the misdeeds of The Las Vegas Sun last week in covering a murder in Summerlin, an affluent suburb of Las Vegas (thanks and kudos to Amanda Dean for pointing this out to me).
The coverage relied in part on anonymous online sources, sources who were not verified and corroborated as real-world sources routinely are, even by The Sun. You MUST read the correction The Sun ran in print. I’ve never read one like it. You can see it on the blog Amanda pointed me to. The blogger identifies himself as one of the reporters who covered the Monte Carlo hotel fire.
Our questions, then, are somewhat obvious:
- When, if ever, can journalists use what people say in such quasi-public online venues?
- How do we apply the discipline of verification in, first, determining that someone is who he he is; second, how credible a source is the person; and, third, corroborating what he is saying or claiming?
- Why do you think The Sun reporter failed to follow the newspaper’s discipline of verification, or policy in using anonymous sourcing? Does the reason have anything to do with the medium?
- To the section of OJE on shield law protection, how do events like this one in Summerlin affect the Fourth Estate’s attempts to win a federal shield law from Congress (HINT: It doesn’t help!)?
- Finally, right on topic, CORRECTIONS. Note in the blogger’s take how the Sun handled corrections by medium. In print, a full, comprehensive explanation of what happened and why. Online, on its glossy, new Web site, nothing. No corrections. The book asks (p. 107), how should online journalists handle online corrections? Delete the erroneous and replace it? Leave old versions intact but append corrections, with an explanatory note? Strike through problematic verbiage and make clear what the updated or new information is? What do you think?
What a great case study straight from the news, and from a news site we looked at rather closely earlier in the semester. Cool.
March 8, 2008 at 1:06 pm |
I believe that journalists should only use what is said in online venues when they can corroborate that the person making the claims identifies themselves to the journalist and provides some means of verification. Using information without this verification is only inviting trouble as the reporter for the Las Vegas Sun undoubtedly learned. On this point, i do believe that it is possible to apply the disciplines of verification applied in print to online sources as well, but I do not think that it is something that most journalists will be happy about. This is because, in order to apply this disciplines to an online environment, a journalist will have to use some elbow grease and will, necessarily lose a lot of potential sources. To utilize the discipline of verification online, journalist will have to find a means of contacting the source they wish to cite and have a conversation with the person just like they would for a typical print news story. This automatically dumps the anonymous sources from the list.
I think there are several possible reasons why the Sun reporter failed to follow the discipline of verification. First, it sounds as if he was looking for a fast, breaking story and didn’t want to take the time to track down verifiable sources or even to check and see if the anonymous sources he had found were verifiable. Second, it seems possible that the reporter may have had an agenda in showing that even the rich we susceptible to violent crime. Third, he seems to practice sloppy reporting as a habit if the shoddy use of incident reports and lack of knowledge about the sentencing of the 311 Boyz is any indication. I do think that this is a characteristic of the medium. With so much information at your fingertips from so many different places and points of view, it is very easy to be lazy and just take what you’re given without questioning it and it’s especially tempting when you’re facing a looming deadline or have an agenda. Journalists now have to work much harder than ever to stay alert where sources are concerned and not fall into the trap of easy, anonymous, abundant information.
I honestly think that reporting like this hurts the Fourth Estate’s chances at a Congressional shield law immensely. If journalists aren’t going to be responsible at professional about their jobs and are goign to just take whatever information they can get their hands on with no questions asked and no follow-up conducted then there’s nothing to protect. If you have cultivated a working relationship with a source and that source has provided you with reliable, relevant, and important information in the past, they deserve to be protected. These sources are an asset to the reader and to the organization and without them a lot of important news would slip through the cracks. However, Joe Schmoe from the internet who refuses to give you his name or go on record, who hides behind the anonymity provided by the web, and who is likely passing bad information does not deserve protection. He may or may not be passing good information. He has not put any trust in the journalist or the process, therefore, I see no reason why a journalist should risk anything for him.
As for corrections, I think it would be best in an online environment to leave the story as it was originally published and post the corrections at the head via a clearly marked link. The way that the Sun did it is ridiculous to me. It seems as if they are afraid of sullying their precious new website when that’s the point of journalism. If you’re going to make mistakes, you have to be prepared to get dirty and own them regardless of the medium. They already published the story online and by leaving it there they are just sullying their new baby further. In this case, publishing the corrections on the website would serve to purify the space and show some responsibility on the part of the organization. Now, the only people who have seen the corrections, aside from those who read the blog that scanned them, are the readers who get the print copy of the paper. That leaves a large number of people who read the online version in the dark as to the scope of the mistake that has been made. As a result, the paper is failing in its responsibility to its readers. Bite the bullet guys and get your new website muddy. It’s better for it in the long run.
March 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
Online venues can be tricky to decipher, especially for journalists who are wondering what venues to trust as fact or something they can rely on as a source. However, I don’t think journalists can be excused whatsoever for information they received from an online source that happens to be not so reliable. I think, at least, that journalists should look for specific identification of the writer for any venue they choose to look at as a source. If they know specifically who they are getting their info from, then they should probably get out of their lazy bubble and double check their source by contacting them in some way (or attempting to) to let them know the journalist plans to use the information. Knowing as much about a source as possible is probably the best way to go for a journalist. If they can’t, I suggest they don’t use information unless it is from some scholarly site that they know is reliable, or at least from one that they know hasn’t been false before. But doing this does require journalists from being as lazy as they usually are.
I think the easiest way to use discipline in verifying a source’s credibility is to attempt as much contact with that source as possible. The less you know about your source, the easier it is to be blinded to the fact that they may not be reliable. If a source provides no way for someone to contact them, then I, as a journalist, would avoid using their information at all. If you are able to at least have a phone conversation with someone to verify who they are and to know they really do know about what they claim to be saying, then that would probably be the best way to credit a source. If they are close enough, a personal meeting would be great too. But to not be able to contact them at all is a sign that they either aren’t reliable or the journalist needs to check their facts with other sources that match up.
The Sun reporter probably failed to use discipline of verification for two reasons. I think the medium he was working with was part of it. If someone is used to trusting the majority of what they read online, then the probably will not double check their facts or sources like they need to. That may have been a part of what happened to him. He was just so used to trusting what he read online that he didn’t check his sources enough. I think it also has to do with laziness, like we talked about in class. Trusting a source too much can be a cover-up for being too lazy to check facts. If so much information is available at your fingertips, some journalists take advantage of that without thinking twice about its validity.
I agree with Caitie about the Fourth Estate. I don’t blame the Congressional shield law if they don’t trust journalists as much today. Why should they? Many journalists are not keeping their vow to be trustworthy and ethical with all the information they publish. They might mean to and they might have good intentions to do so, but if they don’t take responsibility for how they misdirect readers because of their failure to check the validity of their sources, then I don’t blame Congress for not trusting them as much. Cases like the Summerlin definitely do not help in this either. These types of incidences only add to the distrust placed on the Fourth Estate.
If an error or mistake is made online, I think the best way to go about fixing it is to completely delete the site or link that directs readers to false information and post another link in its place stating an apology and a revised page fixing what information they got wrong. This, not only clears from all records the false information that would steer readers into believing something wrong, but it will also allow the writers to practice humility and admit they made a mistake and that they have fixed the problem. I think that’s all they can do, but it’s still a good practice at integrity.
March 8, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
As far as anonymity is concerned, the editors, or at least the writers, of the newspaper (or whatever medium) should know the identity of the anonymous source. We touched on it in class, but I feel like using an anonymous online source can only go 2 ways: a journalist can use the anonymous source to get an idea for a story. Then, they can research whether the anonymous source’s claim or statement has any merit. Or, the journalist can seek out the the anonymous source and verify they are who they say they are and that their statement is true (or relevant to the news story). The risk of publishing a news story based on anonymous sources would, I would think almost always, result in lots of corrections in the next issue. Basic fact checking and verification has always been necessary to journalists and shouldn’t change with the Web.
I think the reporter saw the comments, got excited and just got lazy. It sounds as simple as starting off a news story with a specific angle in mind and not changing it when the facts don’t match up with what you originally thought. This reminds me of something I read on Rome News-Tribune’s Web site.
I’m a huge fan, thanks to Dr.Carroll’s tip, of Los Amigos. It’s a great family-owned Mexican place in south Rome. One day, I was looking up the phone number for it to call ahead for a big group, so I just Googled “Los Amigos, Rome.” The fourth or fifth result was a story about Rossy, the owner, who is from Guadalajara. The story is OK and I’m glad they featured her. What disgusted me to no end were the racist comments at the end of the story. Here’s the story http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news838319.html and everyone can see for themselves how awful the comments are. It absolutely made me want to investigate a little and see just how many Romans actually feel that way, or at least would admit to it. But, I would never use these comments in a news story without knowing who’s behind them. But, I’m sure that I feel similar to the way The Sun’s reporter felt. These people don’t deserved to be called “filthy” and “nasty.” And it disturbs me that someone would write those things. There’s a desire to expose the racist people that would write such things, but in The Sun’s case, that desire seemed to get in the way of routine verification.
How long after the original story ran did they run corrections? The next day or the next week? The same one they ran in the print is now online, before the story. It looks like the corrections ran a little late, but I think I like the way they’ve done it. Readers deserve to know BEFORE they read a story that it contains lots of factual errors. Otherwise, they may read it, draw their conclusions, read the correction, but stick with their gut reaction to the original story. Maybe that’s unlikely, but it could probably happen.
March 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
The use of anonymous sources from online sources seems like the easy way out nine times out of ten. Anonymity should only be used when a reporter and his or her editor know the identity of the source, but for some reason can not name them in the piece. I agree that anonymous posts should only be used for gathering ideas. The way that we handled all of the anonymous posting in regards to CHEERGATE ‘08 was to mention their presence, but no more than that. It seemed like the acceptable way to treat the situation.
Even if someone’s user name is given in a forum, that is not enough information to use them as a source. The discipline of verification calls for further investigation. A source must be contacted and verify what they have allegedly said online for it to be used.
I do not have a good answer for why the reporter did what he did. From what the blog post said where the correction is found, this reporter is a solid reporter who written some great journalism. Sure, he may have grown a little lax since the publication was exclusively on the web, but it seems like this is an instance where a credible, traditional news source could have really shown how online activity should be handled. Instead, because of his mistakes, they look as if they need a primer in what the web truly is, and how it should be used.
This piece cripples the attempt for legislation to be passed creating a national shield law for reporters. What kind of privilege does a member of the Fourth Estate actually deserve when this is how a topic as sensitive as a murder in a peaceful community is handled. I would contend that it does not warrant any, and I actually wrote an entire COM Law paper stating that the U.S. absolutely must implement a federal shield law. This leads back to the overarching questions of who is a journalist, and should there be benchmark or requirement for everyone who wishes to practice journalism in the U.S. like there are in some other countries?
I prefer the way that the NYT handles its online corrections. The original article remains intact, but the correction is added in the exact place of the article where it is needed. This is an effective way to show that 1. a mistake has been made, and 2. we want you to know precisely what the change in the piece was.
March 8, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
I like what the book says regarding using online sources, comparing them to overheard conversations and that “merely passing along something said online is no better than using an anonymous source without a compelling reason to do so” (OJE, 90). While I may put a little bit of trust into the information, I would treat it with the same skepticism that I treat anonymous sources. I would then say that the use of such sources depends on the seriousness of the news item. They may be acceptable in a story about a local dog show, but perhaps not in a story about high-crime.
Like I said in class, it is somewhat possible to apply DOV to online sources, but it certainly depends on the circumstance. Some people, as we saw with the vanity searches, have a lot more information about them on the web than others. The source certainly would be approached with skepticism, even so, but the informed (or at least slightly educated) person should would be able to make that discernment.
My first response to the question of why the reporter used the source is that it was easy. Perhaps it was the angle he was looking for (or even his own opinion). As we’ve seen in the discussion of the Long Tail, it is easy to find anyone online with similar random tastes and opinions. While it is completely unacceptable, I’m not at all surprised.
March 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm |
PS- on the topic of privacy, it is interesting to note that wordpress lets you know that your email will not be published.
March 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
These are really great responses, in their thoughtfulness and depth. We seem to agree that the use of anonymous online sources should be very rare and probably general (for story ideas, as Amanda suggested, or for a pulse, as Stephen mentioned). Laura rightly points to the book for the analogy for anon. online as overhearing a conversation in public. We should treat both precisely the same way.
Naturally we throw darts at the reporter; it’s his byline on the story. We should also question the role and apparent lapse on the part of his editors, as well. How did the reporting and its sourcing get through the gate, past the editors, through the editing and filtering process and into the newspaper and onto the site? It is these processes that should distinguish news gathering operations from the open Web, but in this instance failed.
Interestingly, another category of anonymous speech is causing trouble, as well, and that is the category Amanda referenced — anonymous posters spewing hate, insult and offense, cowards hiding behind the Web’s cloak to take potshots at whoever. This kind of garbage is being called a contributor to the suicide of an advertising executive in Chicago recently, the 13-year-old in Missouri who killed herself last year, and we saw it on the Carrier. The recklessness, ignorance and mean-spiritedness that characterize these comments threaten to remove for sites like the Rome News-Tribune and Carrier immunity from lawsuit provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Anonymous cowards have been busy writing checks perhaps digital communication cannot cash. Congress is contemplating closing the account, or at least making it more difficult to keep writing the checks.
March 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
The correction piece for the Summerlin article is interesting. I was really surprised at the number of errors. It showed a major lack of professionalism in my opinion. I think it’s sad that there were that many errors all in one article.
I pretty much agree with what the others have said so far. I think that the lack of fact checking has resulted from laziness and pressure to report quickly. The Internet is available 24/7 right at our fingertips, and when in a crunch we all run to it to get things done. Whether this is right or not, is a completely different story. I think it’s great that the news is available anytime we need it, but I don’t mind waiting an extra hour to get the right news. I would much rather get accurate news then poorly written and edited news. Slow and steady wins the race, right?
As far as correcting errors online, I prefer the mistake being left and a correction being added. Readers will want to see what the mistake was rather than just hearing that there was a mistake made, we’re sorry. I think it adds to the credibility to show the error and admit they are wrong.
March 9, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
Using anonymous online sources should only be used when you can verify 1. most of the person’s identity 2. they know what they’re talking about and 3. if they have an agenda. How to identify these sources? As Rebekah suggested, a phone call. If they aren’t willing to give you any more information, they probably aren’t a reliable source anyway. To corroborate what a potential source says, dig around. See if there are other reliable sources–preferably who would go on the record–who agree.
Like mostly everyone else, I think the reporter just got lazy. However, even if that was the case, how did it get through the editing process? Did the editor go on blind faith, thinking that since this particular writer was good that the story was correct and did not need to be fact-checked? I almost see as much reason to blame the editor as I do the writer (almost, but not quite).
As far as corrections to an online article go, I would prefer to see the original article with corrections made in the spot that the errors occurred. It would also be nice to see an explanation or justification of why the editors and writers thought they were doing the right thing by running the story. The Las Vegas Sun should’ve run the corrections on the website…front page, just like the story was. (I do have a question, though. On the link provided–from this web page–the story has the corrections run. Did The Las Vegas Sun finally run corrections on its online edition?)
March 9, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
Online sources seems like a good way for reporters to get a feel for how the public is reacting to certain events or topics, but a direct quote from a chat room of some kind seems very sketchy. As we mentioned in class, if someone does seem to stand out in one of these chats as an “expert,” a Google search or a phone call would be a good way for verification. But really, even then, this person could lie about who they were just as easily over the phone as they could in a chat room. For the most part, getting quotes and sources from websites and chat rooms should be avoided.
As far as the Sun reporter’s failure of verification, I get the impression that he had already decided what his spin on the story would be and found quotes to fit, rather than the other way around. Also, the blogger speculates, “It’s clear Joe didn’t leave his desk for this one.” Which may be another reason for the lack of verificaiton.
I think if the Sun were to delete the article from its website, it would seem like they were trying to cover up a scandal. The corrections should definately be appended and an explanation (and maybe an apology from the reporter?) be attatched.
March 9, 2008 at 10:44 pm |
Looking at online postings is a good way to get an idea of how people are feeling about a subject. But these online forums can also be a place for people to just spout off hate. Besides all of the ethics questions that are involved, the story would just be more compelling if you could find real life sources even if they are anonymous. I know the author used several sources he quoted, but none were making the accusations that the anonymous sources were.
As sad as it is, you almost expect people to express hateful views in public forums as long as no one knows who said it. To me, it is interesting (and sad) to read what people have said, but I still feel like it equates to little more than high schoolers scrawling hateful things on bathroom walls. For a person to actually say those things in an interview to a reporter, even if their identity is anonymous, is a totally different game.
I feel like it would be much easier to find these racist comments online because people are much more willing to make comments like that when their name is not attached and they don’t have the responsibility to own up to these thoughts.
I see where the reporter was coming from using these comments- he is after all working in an online environment himself. I think perhaps the reporter could have felt like he could use these comments because he was writing a piece on how the people of a certain area felt after an incident, and what better of a place to look than an online discussion environment. But it shouldn’t stop there. You have to dig deeper. Maybe if he could have found real people to talk to with the same thoughts… then he wouldn’t have the need to use those comments. I think this statement is valid:
“the Internet has been littered with comments from angry and scared people trying to pin blame — on the lower class, on the middle class, on race.”
But perhaps put this in conjunction with quotes from sources (anonymous or not) that were not found online.
March 9, 2008 at 10:58 pm |
I dont think that jouralist should ever really trust what people say online because of what we talked about how someone could not be who they say they are. Like the dog cartoon someone could be making stuff up and really someone else.
I think that like what we talked about in class that you should check in and see if someone is who they say they are by calling them or emailing them and asking them if they really printed stuff like this on the forum or whatever site they have it on. I do agree with Chelsea and that online chat rooms and forums and such are a good way to see what people think about things but then you have to be careful on who is talking. Although this might offer the reader some input on what people think it might not be the right people that they want ie could be under age people or such. I like how Amanda talks about that people could lie even on the phone. I agree with this and I think almost that you should either meet with that persons before anything you put up anything that they say or talk about.
I think that as far as the Sun reporter not checking facts it was because like what Amanda talked about and that he was not willing to take the extra time to find out what was right and wrong. I think he did kind of already know what he wanted so when he saw what he wanted he went with it no matter who said it.
I think that if something is wrong online that the reporter should go back and fix it just like a paper. They should print a reprint by redoing it online. They should leave what they have but highlight and bold what they changed so that the readers will know that they made a mistake and that this is the right thing.
March 10, 2008 at 12:05 am |
I can’t help but agree with most of the opinions of those above me in that using anonymous online sources is just not right, as it leaves room for bias and obviously erroneous information. However, I do understand that some circumstances warrant anonymity, but that is judgment call that lives in shades of gray, ultimately coming down sensitivity of the subject and the editor’s decision.
Perhaps everyone is right and the reporter truly was having a lazy day in which taking the easy way out just seemed right. Personally, I don’t think journalism is a business in which being lazy is acceptable in any situation.
As for the corrections, I am blown away by how long it took to issue them since most publications issues corrections promptly after running a piece if need be, not a week later. Furthermore, only running them in the print edition and not with the original piece online was just ridiculous, perhaps someone in the web department was feeling a bit lazy as well.
One example that I think would have worked well for them is the NYT approach to the McCain article in which they had the editors and reporters field questions discussing why they choose to run the story. I think this was a smart move on their behalf and could have been emulated by the folks at the Las Vegas Sun to at least shed some light on their reasoning for anonymous sources. Like I mentioned earlier sometimes there is a reason for maintaining anonymity, although I don’t think story was a candidate (since they were online sources) I personally would have at least heard them out.
March 10, 2008 at 12:34 am |
It is clear that the Sun reporter was trying to get the story out as quickly as possible and it almost seems as though the or a editor failed to read it. This reporter seemed to be crunched for time and not willing to actually check his information.
I think with the capability of online research journalists should be even more on top of their game with fact checking. We can currently get our hands on a lot of information fast and if the correct data bases are used … then so much can be found.
Using blogs in my opinion should be looked at mainly as other peoples opinions, not the absolute factual truth. I know there are a lot of credible blogs out there but it would take research to make sure of that. One would have to look up the author and check other works that they have done or who they work for etc. This would help clarify the veracity of a person if they could be found in other places besides their own blogs.
As far as corrections go. I also think that the errors should be left where they are and corrections run but readers should be able to see/access the original article before the errors have been corrected. I don’t think that things should be changed without notification. Especially in crime cases, one would think that articles can be helpful with investigations.
March 10, 2008 at 6:04 am |
Caitie Jones basically sums up my opinion on the subject, I read a few more peoples post, but she comes the closest to what I want to say. I must say though I do believe that anonymous sources do have their places in stories. That this is a time when a reporter finds out that the information is accurate by doing research, whether that be investigative or just checking the source with/against other individuals. Once the reporter finds that the information is accurate then he/she can use the information. The only other difference I have with Catie’s post is how outlets should correct their stories on the internet. I believe that the first story shown should be the one up to date without any marks on the page showing corrections, but there should be a link on the page that goes to the original story posted and on that page they should have all the corrections in different colors. Each color signifying the order in which the correction was made.
March 10, 2008 at 6:14 am |
I would agree with what seems to be the class consensus that anonymous sources from online forums should only be used as leads for further investigation and contacting sources. I also agree the the reporter’s behavior was lazy, as equally was his editor’s decision not to scrutinize his work.
So, to talk about something that Sarah mentioned, I agree that corrections should be run in online news sources. I really like Sarah’s point of making the original article accessible. I think that because of the speed of online publishing, generally more corrections are needed online than in print. Also, because of the permanency of on-line content, as opposed to a newspaper that is thrown away, the information in the story should be updated, no matter how small the error.
I think it would be easy to make corrections to the story and also post the original version. But so that people aren’t guessing what changed in the new version, I think the changes should be distinguished in some way (footnotes, red text, strike through, etc.).
However, corrections also need to be publicized in some way, because people are not likely to re-visit every news story they have read, just to check for corrections. I think corrections that are minor, misspelling someone’s name, changing a historical fact, etc. do not need front page placement. Perhaps they could just be linked from a corrections section. But, corrections like the one needed for this Las Vegas Sun story deserve more attention. When gross errors or negligence have been committed, the corrected material deserves as much, if not more attention than the initial story.
March 10, 2008 at 8:01 am |
For journalists, I think they must always try to follow the three source verification “tool” to determine whether or not a source is valid. A journalist should make sure quotes have validity on their own (can stand on their own two feet), not just validity within the contextual slant of their story. The use of anonymous online sources is an especially slippery choice to make since it is so easy to deceive someone via the internet.
In the case of the The Sun reporter, it seems likely that the slant they began to take with their story grew entirely out of their reading of the quotes online. Also, the laziness might have been a reciprocation of the fact it was an article printed online. Almost as though the author didn’t see the internet quite as important a medium as print.
As Catie mentioned in the first post that if journalists just take “whatever information they can get their hands on with no questions asked and no follow-up conducted then there’s nothing to protect.” Congress is going to feel lazy in passing laws that help out lazy people.
I think it is a bit ridiculous that it took The Sun so long to get corrections up online. That should have been the first place they rectified mistakes because it would have been the simplest place to get out word that mistakes had in fact been made. From start to finish, the entire situation was riddled with lazy journalism.