Week 6 February 12, 2008

Reading Abstract

             In “Calling for back-up,” Richard Chacon questions the purpose and accuracy of the opinion columns in newspapers. He asserts that op-ed pieces should have the same standards for sourcing and attribution that are applied to regular stories in the news sections. He cites specific cases of op-ed pieces where editors did not check the facts, sources and/or the math. While op-ed pieces are personal opinions of the author, that doesn’t necessarily mean that anything can be published without someone checking every single name, number and attribution. One free-lance writer suggests that newspapers should make writers include source information in brackets when submitting a column. In turn, the editor will know where the information comes from and whether or not it is accurate. The lack of accuracy in certain op-ed pieces is thus a demonstration of the lack of tight standards of editing when putting out a newspaper for deadline. Since the opinion pieces are not always directly written by newspaper staff, it is as if they are exempt from standard editing procedures, simply because they are opinions. However, what most editors are not realizing is that since op-ed pieces shape the minds and views of the reader, the facts that these opinions are based on should be just as, if not even more, prone to scrutiny.

            “The Discerning Eye: Truth in Storytelling” by Peter Osnos also deals with flaws in accuracy and truth in stories. He uses the example of James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces and the invented stories by Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair, which were both eventually published. He compares and contrasts book publishing and news editing, and states that “it is undeniably true that soaring success if often accompanied by arrogance which makes the institution especially vulnerable to a failure of standards or insight.” When an editor receives a story that is so unbelievable, it might just be. Stories like “Jimmy’s World” sometimes blur the line between success and skepticism and protection of credibility. Osnos also makes the assertion that books, unlike parts of the media, are based on sales have no advertising and no subscription. However, in today’s fast-paced commercialized and capitalistic newspaper industry, every little fact and name must be checked before news is disseminated around the world. Therefore, the media are under a more discerning eye than books are, because the reputation of a whole industry is tarnished. When an author of a book fabricates his story, one person’s reputation is hurt, but the work can become a successfully selling work of fiction. Newspapers are never fiction, and when an editor is skeptical about the credibility of a story, he or she should always protect the standards of accuracy when making writers prove their facts and stories.

            During the most recent New Editors’ Survival Guide seminar at API, Rosalie Stemer led a group of new editors in a discussion of skeptical editing. They came up with a list of questions every editor should ask when editing a story before publication. Some examples include double-checking addresses, names, math, spelling and attribution. Also, an editor should check the information on LexisNexis and to ask whether there is any reason to doubt the information. If Stemer’s list were posted in every newsroom, careless errors and fabrication might be prevented. An editor must understand that there is never a reason to be completely sure that a story is accurate and credible. Editors must question writers, sources, research tools, and most importantly, themselves.