Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Journalistic sources

This is only vaguely fanfic-related, so forgive me if people think it belongs in Off Topic.

In the UK right now, there's a biggish story in the news involving a clash between the BBC and the government (or more precisely, the Prime Minister's office). It revolves around a story a reporter from the BBC wrote about an important dossier which was partly instrumental in convincing parliament to go to war in Iraq. The story claims the dossier was artificially beefed up (the popular phrase is 'sexed up') to make the arguments for war more compelling.

Now, what has surprised me in the whole charade is that the BBC reporter used a single (anonymous) source for his story. The BBC have defended him, saying that this is quite acceptable within current BBC policy.

I always thought that reporters were taught to get more than one source for a story; that this was considered essential, particularly if the story was potentially very contraversial.

Can anyone enlighten me? Am I wrong? And if L&C were writing this story for Perry, would he accept a single source?

Yvonne

The general rule of thumb is that one should never write an article with only one source because journalists need to present a complete view of the issue - not just one side. Beyond that, anytime reporters want to publish something controversial, they are supposed to have three separate sources confirming the information. Those don't all have to be human sources - they may have one interview, one document, and their own eye witness account - but there are supposed to be three separate sources.

However, in reality, stuff like this happens a lot. Newspapers are first and foremost a business now. To those of us who work on the editorial side of newspapers (writers and editors) this has become a distressing reality, and the subject of much discussion and analysis. There are a number of excellent books and articles examining the problems that arise when publishers with no journalistic experience pressure newsrooms to cut costs while churning out stories that will entice readers and increase circulation - therefore increasing advertising revenue. When this happens, corners often are cut. Editors eager for a big scoop sometimes push through stories that should be held until the writer can get collaborating sources. Editors sometimes put too much trust in writers who are under a great deal of stress to produce "the next pulitzer." This is how things like the Janet Cook and Jayson Blair scandals happen. (Janet Cook was a Washington Post reporter who had her Pulitzer stripped after it was discovered that she had created a fictional child to profile by combining interviews with a number of different sources. Jayson Blair recently resigned from The New York Times after it was discovered that he plagerized many of his stories and in other cases invented sources and lied about interviews he claimed to have conducted.)

That was a long answer, and probably more than you wanted. The short version is that no, this is not acceptable, but unfortunately it's really rather unsuprising.

Annie

I don't know anything about RL journalism, but I'd guess much would depend on how credible that single source was.

As far as the Daily Planet goes, Bobby Bigmouth was often a single source who lead Lois and Clark to the big stories. But then by the time they went to print, our heroes had usually wrapped the whole thing up and the miscreants were already in prison. So he was really a stepping stone in the chain, rather than relied on as gospel.

And, IIRC, the one time that Lois used a single source to publish allegations without having run down the culprits first and tied up all the loose ends, she and the paper got in terrible trouble for it. (The Source).

BTW, isn't it the story now that Andrew Gilligan had four sources for his story? Kelly was considered the main source and the other three minor in comparison to him?

LabRat

Only I doubt Lois and Clark even quoted Bobby Bigmouth as their official source. Bobby would be what, here we call a contact (police also have this), a person who doesn't want to be quoted in articles but who often provides reliable and first class infos. No money involved, only a relation of trust between the reporter and the contact...
...Which can also raise the debate on how reliable can a source be. There has been affairs where "so called" sources used a journalist for their own purpose without her/him necessarily being aware of it...but that's another story.

Annie is right, a journalist has to consider all, or at least more than one angle or POV of a question...and it's even worse when investigation journalism is concerned. (I won't dwell on the subject, becauseyou certainly don't want a 2 pages answer here).

Back to sources...

For real hot and controversial subjects it's "the more, the better" (interviews, documents, verified pictures...). But, if the journalist only has one source he/she knows is a major reference given the subject the article is based on, he/she (the journalist, bear with me ) can shield his/her source by using special phrases to refer to it. There are four to six of them, each giving an indication on how close to the subject the source is.

The only drawback is that with a little crossing, other journalists can find who your real source was and cause damages by digging too far, or not in the right direction.

In the case of Bobby, Lois bases her investigation on his infos, but it's just it: a lead, a base. She has to double or triple cross it with real facts, real sources.

Carole (talk about babbling and not making sense )

Yeah, I'm sure Bobby Bigmouth was an off-the-record source. Journalists often have a number of people they know they can go to for a push in the right direction - secretaries, underlings, etc - who know what is going on but are unable/unwilling to be quoted. Journalists use these sources to get a better understanding of what is happening and to help them figure out who they should interview. For example, if Bobby Bigmouth told them that the connection between Costsmart and Intergang had to do with a secret a secret meeting every Tuesday, Lois and Clark would not publish that - they would try to find the meeting and sneak in or interview people who were there. Once the story broke, readers would see that Lois and Clark had uncovered a group who met in secret every Tuesday, but they would have no idea where they got that tip. Journalists have to be very careful to protect sources like these. Otherwise they might find themself floundering in the dark not knowing what the story is or who to interview.

Annie