re: #317 SixDegrees

The problem is that there’s no way for the reader to distinguish between any of these alternatives by any objective means. It isn’t even possible for anyone, reader or fellow journalist, to confirm the information given.

I have three recommendations for the media in general, and newspapers in particular.

1) Cut back on unnamed sources for a few reasons. First, the source will know they can always go anonymous and will always do so, which will show other sources they can do it as well. Second, if their opinions/information are so damn important, they should be able to attach their name to it. Third, the public will trust the story and the outlet more if you avoid unnamed sources. Only use unnamed sources in the whistleblower situation.

2) He said/she said is not balance. If you have one politician who is telling the truth while the other responds with a lie, it is not balance just because you have “both sides.” It will only confuse the reader and makes you look like a lazy fact checker. Writing a story that is “Democrat lies, Republican responds with a different lie” is not unbiased reporting. It’s poor reporting.

3) Stop endorsing candidates. It used to be valuable when people had limited access to info. That’s no longer true. Refusing to endorse anybody sends a good message to the public.