Editor’s Note
Back in the old days — that’s less than a decade and before there were such things as blogs and interactive conversations with readers — editors used to respond to their newspaper readers with an “editor’s note.” Sometimes it clarified a point made in a letter to the editor. Sometimes it offered a correction. Sometimes it was just a simple explanation. An editor’s note was a handful of sentences; maybe a four or five paragraphs. It was always a personal link between the editor and the reader. Only difference between it and today’s blog is the immediacy and the platform. Welcome to Editor’s Note.

Fact, fiction and someone with an agenda

September 16th, 2009 at 07:48am Linda Grist Cunningham

Last week we got a so-called “tip” on a news story about another conflict between Faith Center and Legacy, the charter school. The tipster wouldn’t give us the information unless we promised him anonoymity. We said no, and then we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the information because it was public record.

We eventually got the information we needed — on the record and with no agreement of confidentiality — and we published a story. Our story appeared after the television stations broadcast their versions.

I guess the tipster didn’t like our “no,” so he shopped his tip elsewhere. We don’t use confidential sources as the single source for a news story. I cannot remember a time since 1991 when we have used a single anonymous source as the foundation for publishing.

And, when the demand to be confidential comes, I have to know who the source is. Period. We don’t take the information and we certainly don’t publish it unless I know the source and, in some cases, I will have met with him or her. In the situation last week, I figured out pretty quickly who the source was and said “absolutely not.” We’re not here to be manipulated or have the news manipulated by sources like that one. We’ll do our own reporting — on the record. It’s best to get it right and get it first. But if I must choose between right and first, I’ll take right every time.

It’s your choice whom you believe. But there’s a lot of junk floating out there these days that’s passing itself off as fact. You might want to do as we do — consider the source — before you decide to believe.

Here are a handful of links to other stories this past week or so in which separating fact from fiction from agenda was the order of the day. Why would journalists make up news? How many WERE at the tea party? Was CNN right about the gun shots?

 

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. readingmike94  |  September 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Ok I will buy the premise you need to seperate fact from fiction but what about the RRStar\’s retraction in today\’s paper that basically said that they made up the first two paragraphs of a story? Isn\’t that putting fiction in a news article?

  • 2. Linda Grist Cunningham  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    The writer drew conclusions that on hindsight I didn’t think were supported well by the information in the story. That’s why we ran the clarification/correction. He didn’t make up the conclusions out of whole cloth.

  • 3. chris73456  |  September 24th, 2009 at 8:52 am

    Why woud “journalists” make up news? Where have you been living? I am so tired of everyone in the media telling me how it should be and hiding behind the frredom of information act whike acting like you are the only ones who know what is going on. Tis a lofty perch you are on.Hope you don’t fall………….

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed