Online journalism has always had a sourcing problem. From using unverified 'anonymous tips' to repeating whatever rumor or speculation people are chattering about, the general ethic is, 'We'll publish just about anything.'
The first duty of a newspaper is to be accurate. If it be accurate, it follows that it is fair.
'Reality' is a notion that journalists take for granted.
I take a certain pride in having maintained a reputation for fast copy throughout my newspaper career. Fast-breaking stories left my typewriter in a hurry. Not great literature, perhaps, but fast, and usually accurate.
Everyone is free to express their opinions, but I think that journalists should do it with more responsibility. They lack accuracy.
In the end, Dan Rather's legend skewered him, CBS and the craft of journalism.
Journalists do not live by words alone, although sometimes they have to eat them.
What I say is that there are not half a dozen papers in the United States which tamper with the news, which publish what they know to be false. But if I thought I had done no better than that, I would be ashamed to own a paper. You have to make everyone connected with the paper believe that accuracy is to a newspaper what virtue is to a woman.
Columnists must make sure that when they describe an event, they are being accurate in their description. When they quote someone, they are required to do so accurately. Errors that are made must be corrected openly and quickly.
One of the principles of journalism is you don't lie. You never lie.
In my experience with print journalists, the distinction between remarks being uttered on- or off-the-record is held sacrosanct, but the distinction between truth and falsity sometimes isn't.
If they're going to write a story they're going to write the story whether it's true or not.
If we applied more science reporting standards to political reporting, most of these politicians wouldn’t be able to make all these outrageous statements. We ask where is your data? How can you prove that?
I think it's very useful for you folks (reporters) to try your damndest to be precise. And don't repeat things that are inaccurate if you can possibly avoid it. And when you see things that are inaccurate, knock them down -- because there's a bucket of it floating around.
I think the bottom line for me and for Newsweek is that there were a lot of - we did retract this specific matter about the Koran and the toilet for the reasons that you just cited.
I do think that there are gray lines of morality in a newsroom, when it comes to some stories. The best-intentioned journalist still has a difficult mission, to try to boil down people.
I tell my students, even if you are an opinion journalist, your opinion should be based on facts.
What makes a scientist great is the care that he takes in telling you what is wrong with his results, so that you will not misuse them.
Rather than doing the kind of fact-checking that normally goes with a story, you ran with certain stories for not wanting to get beat. There's a pressure that exists in your profession. I would be surprised in any honest exchange that you say that doesn't exist.
I think we're more relevant than ever because it is such a noisy environment out there. What's a journalist now? It's anybody with a way to get information out and you're sitting there with your smartphone in front of you. That's what we're up against now. There's a lot of unfiltered information. Some of it is accurate, some of it way off base. We're that safe port in the storm.
You guys at Fox can't seem to get your facts straight.
