Remember the old editor's advice: Check it out

AIM THIS PAGE

In one of journalism’s favorite clichés, the crusty editor tells the bright-eyed reporter, “If your mother tells you she loves you, kid, check it out.”

While that story is silly and tired, we could stand some of that kind of skepticism in the business these days.

The most disturbing statement in Judith Miller’s explanations of her actions was her blithe dismissal of her inaccurate reporting on weapons of mass destruction: “If your sources are wrong, you are wrong.”

That has never been the standard of good journalism and we need to change that notion right now. And lest you think that’s just the minority view of “Miss Run Amok,” read this story by Ron Harris in the Nov. 5 St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Harris details the gullibility of newspapers around the country who published, without challenge or balance, the claims of war atrocities in Iraq by former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey. “Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth,” Harris wrote. “He wasn’t.”

Marines present at incidents Massey described and journalists embedded with Massey’s unit said his stories were exaggerated or false. Harris documented inconsistencies in different versions of Massey’s story. Massey confirmed to Harris that he had not actually seen some of the incidents he was telling reporters and lecture audiences about.

Reporters would cover Massey’s lectures and print his claims without calling the Marines for comment.

But by the Judith Miller standard, those reporters did all they could: If your sources are wrong, you are wrong.

Here’s something we need to teach reporters and editors throughout the news business: Sources are wrong. Lots of sources are wrong lots of the time. Some of them lie. Some of them have only part of the story. Some of them have faulty memories. Some of them are mistaken. Some of them exaggerate in the hysteria of traumatic events. Some of them pass along lies and exaggerations they have heard.

How many big stories of our time that got big play when they first broke have been debunked on closer examination? A starter list would include the initial stories of the capture of Jessica Lynch and the death of Pat Tillman, the exaggerations of crimes and deaths at the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center following Hurricane Katrina and all those stories (not just Miller’) about weapons of mass destruction prior to the war in Iraq.

Even the most reliable sources can be wrong in the least controversial of stories. In 1996, I was writing a series about a team that had won the Iowa girls high school basketball championship 25 years earlier. I interviewed every member of the championship team, the Farragut Admiralettes. I interviewed the star and coach of the other team (both of Farragut’s coaches had died). I interviewed journalists who covered the game and fans who watched.

Again and again, I heard the same story about how Farragut won: Mediapolis ran up an early lead as Barb Wischmeier, who was 6-foot-1, scored a lot of points. Then Farragut’s coach sent 5-foot-2 Tanya Bopp in to guard Wischmeier. Bopp drew a bunch of charging fouls, flustered the bigger girl and Farragut came from behind to win the championship. It was one of the most important and memorable events of these women’s lives. People remembered the game in vivid detail. Some remembered specifically that Bopp drew three fouls or four.

I had no reason to doubt anyone’s story. I got a videotape and watched it, looking for some details to add to my story, to help me help the reader see the championship game, the moment of celebration. I was confused after watching the tape, so I watched again, counting the fouls. Bopp drew one foul on Wischmeier. It did turn the game around but it happened only once. I couldn’t trust anyone’s memory about the game, as vividly as they recalled it. In the retelling and reliving of that game, the key moment grew to legendary proportions.

How much more can the fog of war or the selectiveness of partisanship distort memory or twist facts? Sometimes verification is tougher than watching a videotape, but verification is one of a reporter’s most important duties.

The reporter’s job is not to parrot sources’ lies, exaggerations and mistakes. The editor’s job is not to check the grammar on the reporter’s story and rush it into the paper. Reporters need to challenge sources’ stories and seek verification. Editors need to challenge reporters’ stories and insist on verification, even if it means holding a story for a day or two.

Our first day in this business, journalists learn six important questions that shape every news story: Who, what, when, where, why and how? We need to reteach a lot of journalists another question that editors and reporters need to ask far more than they do: How do you know that?

sbuttry@americanpressinstitute.org

Post a comment