Elements of Journalism: Journalism Of Verification

The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification. That is, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right, and having a system in place to fact-test information as we discover it.

Verification is what separates journalism from other forms of communication. Entertainment focuses on what is most diverting. Propaganda selects or invents facts to persuade and manipulate. Fiction invents scenarios. Art is based on creating and expressing impressions. Journalism is focused on getting what happened down right.

The meaning of objectivity has been lost. Originally, it was an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information, like the reliance on functional truth that we discussed earlier, so that the personal and cultural biases of reporters would not undermine the accuracy of work.

Objectivity is a device to persuade the audience of one's accuracy and fairness. And journalism and science come from the same intellectual roots. In the same way a scientist comes up with a theory and then runs experiments to prove or disprove the theory, a journalist starts out with a presumption, and then find facts (via documents, witness statements, ect.) to find what is rooted in fact, and what is not.

The "science of reporting" is known as the Objective Method. There are several key points to the method. First, never add anything that wasn't there. Don't invent things, rearrange events in time or place or modify or combine people or events. Your writing can arrange events based on news value, but be sure to make it clear that it's out of sequence.

Second, never deceive the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness. If you vary from the most literal form of eyewitness reporting, let your audience know or don't do it.

Third, be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives. Be as open and honest with audiences about what you know and what you don't. Acknowledge obvious questions your stories are not answering. Ask yourself, what does the reader need to know to evaluate this information for themselves? Also ask yourself, is there anything in your treatment of a story that requires explanation of why you did something of left something out?

Doing so shows respect for your audience. It also helps establish credibility through the expressed public interest motive.

Fourth, clearly identify sources -- both individuals and documents -- and explain any anonymous sourcing.

The problem with the science of reporting is, there is no single standard for verification. Doctors and scientists have rigorous standards based on natural law. For example, if you're doing an experiment on freezing water, water will freeze at 32 degrees, no matter what.

But media, by nature, is more subjective and interpretive. For example, how much proof is enough proof? It's situational and argumentative.

Society as a whole may not agree on a single truth. Think of the abortion debate: different groups have different truths. If you're pro-abortion, it's a right enshrined in law. If you're anti-abortion, it's sanctioned murder. In such instances, the public sphere becomes one of argument, and not agreement on what is truth.

Fairness and balance can also be interpreted differently. So instead of striving to define such terms, it's better to use techniques to help guide journalists in developing and verifying their work. As we noted earlier, balance can lead to distortion.

So, fairness should mean you are being fair to the facts and the audience's understanding of the facts, and not to a particular source  or that your story is balanced in a distorted way. When you try to determine accuracy based on fact-testing, that is journalism. If all you're doing is getting one side and then the other, then you're simply enabling an argument.