Knowing the reporting rules of a type of media seems to be a good way for readers to determine whether or not they wanted to "put their trust" in what the media they listen to or read from.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Washington Post's Policies on Sources, Quotations, Attribution, & Datelines
This article gave me a higher level of respect for the reporting and editing of the Washington Post. I didn't know they didn't randomly try to hide the identities of their sources. I didn't know that they would go out of their way to figure out how to report who their sources are (to maintain the trust of their readership) and would only hide this sources identity under 2 conditions: the source was ordered not to speak with reporters "on record" by their employers, or that speaking "on record" would somehow produce "harm" for the informant. In all cases, it was best to let the readers know why the source could not be identified. Unnamed sources were only used if the article was more accurately reported through an unnamed source than a secondary named source.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We're spending a lot of time tearing apart news headlines and looking for things to object to, but it's important to remember that journalists are well-trained and do follow a strong code of ethics and go out of their way to present accurate stories. It's hard to imagine how this level of professionalism will continue as the Internet and civilian reporters become more and more prevalent, and news organizations continue to go under.
ReplyDeleteMedia Literacy Clearinghouse:
ReplyDeletewww.frankwbaker.com
If you're not already aware of this excellent resource, now you are.