How to Report Newsmakers’ Assertions and Facts AT THE SAME TIME
In response to NYT Public Editor Arthur Brisbane’s question of “whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”
A basic reporting framework:
“My take on the issue is [A],” said News Maker. “In fact, if you look at [B], you will see that [C].”
A is a viewpoint popular among [people who are knowledgeable about the issue/laypersons who don’t care about facts/partisans who have obvious biases]. A report from [reputable third party] in [recent year] found that B is [details about C/actually D].
Example 1, riffing off Mr. Brisbane and Paul Krugman:
Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America.”
In [month, year], in a speech before [venue], Mr. Obama said, “[Thing that Mr. Romney interpreted as an apology for America].” But [explain context of quote], and the speech was largely received by the international community as meaning [reasonable mainstream interpretation].
Note: Good journalism may require reporters to ask Mr. Romney which speeches he is referring to and/or actually do other forms of research.
As a voter, I find it very easy to find information about what candidates have said recently. I find it absurdly difficult to find information about how I should judge those statements, which is information I desperately need in order to make informed decisions and participate in democracy. I see no reason for this; isn’t the point of journalism to inform the public? I, as a reader, shouldn’t have to do the research — that’s a reporter’s job.
Example 2, riffing off every American news article about climate change ever:
Scientists have found that [thing about climate change]. In [a peer-reviewed scientific journal], a peer-reviewed journal, they said [explain it in slightly more detail].
[Some other scientist who actually works in the field of climate change] said the study could be flawed because [actual science reasons].
This finding could affect policy because [reasons]. But Republicans in Congress [or whoever] say they won’t act because the science isn’t settled.
In fact, numerous studies have found that [some near-100 percent] of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and bad for us.
Note: There is no reason to quote scientists who are not climate scientists, or bloggers who are not scientists, unless they are actually relevant to the matter at hand. If they are quoted, they should be clearly identified as having no real basis for knowing what they are talking about.
There is no reason whatsoever why presenting actual facts from real experts alongside commentary from powerful non-experts should be construed as in any way biased. If there are scientific facts involved, then only scientists (and in some cases, science historians and other people in a strong position to be critiquing science — read: not politicians or lobbyists or industry representatives) are experts. Reporters have a responsibility to inform their readers about whether sources are experts and why non-expert sources are interested in and relevant to the story.
Sometimes this will change your story! For example, if you want to write about the fact that some meteorologists don’t believe in climate change, maybe the angle should be, “isn’t that weird, since they’re wrong” rather than “oh my god, look at the controversy! it just caught fire! now it’s doing somersaults!”
