Rolling Stone got it wrong for a simple reason: it forgot how to do basic fact checking. Journalists are not human microphone stands. When someone tells a compelling and riveting story (think Bill O'Reilly), a journalist doesn't just believe it. A journalist ALWAYS wants verification.
So if there's a gang rape at a fraternity, there are lots of people at the frat to go see and lots of questions to ask them. The victim has friends she told. A journalist goes to talk with them. What were they told by the victim, when, how? Do the stories match or are there major inconsistencies which raise questions about the truth of what the journalist has been told by the victim?
The Rolling Stone reporter didn't interview the friends. And I won't recount the numerous basic reporting mistakes pointed out in Columbia Journalism School's report on Rolling Stone's near total lack of proper editorial oversight. There's another question.
Where were the lawyers?
If journalists have forgotten how to do basic fact checking, why did the lawyers fail to do their jobs?
At CBS, Lara Logan's story on Benghazi demonstrated the basic point: CBS news managers have forgotten how to do basic fact checking. The scene is described as Al Qaeda fighters everywhere. Morgan Jones (real name - Dylan Davies) tells Lara Logan that in this incredibly dangerous situation an Al Qaeda fighter just walks up to him so Jones hits him with the butt of his rifle. Oh sure. It's an incredibly violent situation. And the Al Qaeda fighter walks up to say howdie-do and just lets himself be hit in the face. Listen to this segment of the interview and ask yourself one question: who is dumb enough to believe this?
Lara Logan's story could have been blown up with 15 minutes of checking the CBS news archive. But let's give the news managers the benefit of the doubt. They've simply forgotten how to do basic fact checking. They've forgotten that a journalist is not supposed to be a human microphone stand. They've forgotten that journalism requires verification. The question remains: where were the lawyers?
Legal review is fairly basic. You go sentence by sentence. How do we know this is true? How do we know it is fair? What is the evidence? Who are the sources? Who witnessed this? What documentation is there?
If Rolling Stone and CBS have decided they won't fire the reporter and news managers who failed to do journalism 101, they should at least fire the lawyers.
When legal review fails, really embarrassing, brand degrading and potentially costly things happen.
So if there's a gang rape at a fraternity, there are lots of people at the frat to go see and lots of questions to ask them. The victim has friends she told. A journalist goes to talk with them. What were they told by the victim, when, how? Do the stories match or are there major inconsistencies which raise questions about the truth of what the journalist has been told by the victim?
The Rolling Stone reporter didn't interview the friends. And I won't recount the numerous basic reporting mistakes pointed out in Columbia Journalism School's report on Rolling Stone's near total lack of proper editorial oversight. There's another question.
Where were the lawyers?
If journalists have forgotten how to do basic fact checking, why did the lawyers fail to do their jobs?
At CBS, Lara Logan's story on Benghazi demonstrated the basic point: CBS news managers have forgotten how to do basic fact checking. The scene is described as Al Qaeda fighters everywhere. Morgan Jones (real name - Dylan Davies) tells Lara Logan that in this incredibly dangerous situation an Al Qaeda fighter just walks up to him so Jones hits him with the butt of his rifle. Oh sure. It's an incredibly violent situation. And the Al Qaeda fighter walks up to say howdie-do and just lets himself be hit in the face. Listen to this segment of the interview and ask yourself one question: who is dumb enough to believe this?
Lara Logan's story could have been blown up with 15 minutes of checking the CBS news archive. But let's give the news managers the benefit of the doubt. They've simply forgotten how to do basic fact checking. They've forgotten that a journalist is not supposed to be a human microphone stand. They've forgotten that journalism requires verification. The question remains: where were the lawyers?
Legal review is fairly basic. You go sentence by sentence. How do we know this is true? How do we know it is fair? What is the evidence? Who are the sources? Who witnessed this? What documentation is there?
If Rolling Stone and CBS have decided they won't fire the reporter and news managers who failed to do journalism 101, they should at least fire the lawyers.
When legal review fails, really embarrassing, brand degrading and potentially costly things happen.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.