Journalists can sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by making a simple common mistake. We either try too hard to ‘balance’ a story then end up distorting the facts, or we assess contributors or actors in our story as being roughly equal when in fact they are not.

This module looks at ways of avoiding two errors, applying ‘false equivalence’ and ‘false balance’.

These two errors, which are about making inaccurate comparisons, crop up frequently in journalism.

False equivalence is when you say that two or more things are the same, when in fact they are significantly different.

An example of false equivalence is to state that “politicians are all the same”. They are not. They might have similarities and some common attributes but that does not mean they are the same.

False balance is when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, when in fact the evidence weighs heavily in favour of one side.

An example of false balance is the treatment of the climate change debate. Scientists come down heavily in favour of the proposition that human beings are causing, or at least helping to cause, global warming. A tiny minority, perhaps as low as three per cent, disagree, and it is false to represent the dispute as evenly-matched.

Ironically, many cases of false balance happen because the journalist is trying to avoid being biased.

When reporting a controversy, quite properly the journalist does not want to take sides.  But sometimes it is necessary to show that one side’s arguments and evidence are much more persuasive than the other side’s.

An example here is Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he won the 2020 US Presidential election. He has failed to produce any evidence to support that claim and has lost numerous court battles challenging the result. So it is false to present his claim as a viable argument.

False equivalence and false balance can both be used deliberately to mislead people. They are often used in misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

Or they can be examples of lazy thinking by the journalist.

Either way, they are inaccurate and care must be taken to avoid using them.

Things to remember in order to avoid using false equivalence and false balance:

• When you are tempted to say that two or more things are equal, ask yourself if you can justify the statement.
• If the comparison is likely to be controversial, explain why you think it is valid.
• Do not accept or repeat other people’s statements of equivalency, without testing their validity.
• When covering a dispute, make sure you reflect accurately all sides of the argument.  If some of the arguments are questionable, explain why.

It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Impartiality in journalism

Accuracy in journalism

The post False equivalence and false balance first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Briefings, background information, and editorial control

What should a journalist do with off-the-record information? Should they agree to conditions being placed on its use? Should they ignore any conditions and do the story anyway? Or should they use what they have been told as background information and dig further? Try our scenario and decide what you would do in the circumstances.

Dealing with off-the-record information

You are working as a reporter on a local radio station, which is situated in the city centre close to the police headquarters.

Journalists and police officers are often found mixing in the local pub after their shifts have finished.

In the city where you work the journalists have a lot of dealings with the police. Many are on first-name terms, having crossed paths in the course of their work.

The pub is a good place for journalists to pick up leads and background information.

You are having a beer with a couple of journalist pals, when two police officers you know join you for a drink. They, too, have just finished the late shift.

As you chat, one of the officers tells you that, earlier in the evening, vice squad officers working undercover in the city’s red-light district say they saw a prominent public figure driving his car slowly down a street which is well known for kerb-crawling.

Later they say the found the same car parked in a side street. When they checked, they found the man in the back seat with a woman. The woman wasn’t his partner.

The officer tells you that the man was given a caution, and says the police were “taking it no further”.

He names the man, describes the circumstances in some detail, but then says the story is “off the record”, and that it mustn’t get out.

He says a surveillance operation is continuing, and tells the journalists not to mention it to anyone else.

What should you do?

The following are three options. There will be many more, but in this module we are looking at the following three.

Option 1 – run with the story

This has the makings of a lead story. The off-the-record status of the information has no legal bearing; you haven’t signed anything. If the officer gets into trouble that’s his problem.

You have the name of the man, you have the location of the incident, the time it took place, you have a description of the car, and details of what vice squad officers saw when they shone their light in the vehicle.

You have enough for a 30-second voice report for the next bulletin. You should tell the newsdesk you have a new lead, head back to the newsroom, and get working on it as soon as you can.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

You should respect the informal off-the-record arrangement you have with your contact in the local police.

The officer has given you the details only because he trusted you. He has told you that the story “mustn’t get out”.

If you break this confidence it will damage a productive relationship, which might take years to repair.

You need to preserve the close relationship your news organisation has with the authorities.

So you should agree not to mention the incident, not even to your news editor, but to consider it valuable background information related to an on-going investigation.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

You should call your news editor and share the information, making it clear that the officer had told you that he was speaking off the record after he revealed the details.

There is still so much missing from the story. Apart from the chat in the pub with the officer, you have nothing else to go on. You have one source only.

You and your news editor need to discuss the significance of the information. Together you will need to assess the public interest aspects of what has happened.

You will also need to consider why the police officer was willing to share the information.

Then you need to decide whether the alleged incident requires further investigation.

At this stage you should certainly not consider putting anything out on air.

Off-the-record briefings

Off-the-record briefings are common in journalism. They can be useful in helping journalists research background information, and they can provide context about the issues reporters are investigating.

But such briefings can also put a journalist in an awkward position.

It’s possible an off-the-record briefing is given because the person sharing the information wants the journalist to research the matter for a variety of unknown reasons. In that case the journalist might be being used by the information provider.

It could be that the person sharing the information is afraid it will get out and is trying to pre-empt the situation by sharing a version of events in the hope that the journalist will be content with what has been shared and distracted from a bigger story.

Or it might be that the journalist has simply witnessed some loose talk, that the person sharing the information has realised they made a mistake in sharing it, and they are trying to recover the situation by saying what they shared was off the record.

A lot depends on the circumstances.

Some off-the-record chats will take place formally, others will be chance meetings with contacts who have information to share. Most will involve information providers who don’t want to go on the record for having shared it.

Specialist correspondents and beat reporters often depend on receiving confidential information from their contacts as a valuable part of their research.

Most media organisations will have a policy regarding off-the-record briefings. Some will accept them, others will feel that they compromise their ability to seek out facts and tie them to a controlled version of events.

You need to know your employer’s stance on the issue. This should have been made clear when you joined the company and during your training.

This scenario is not about a briefing with a specialist in a particular subject, it’s a chat with a casual contact in a pub late at night.

How would you deal with the situation?

Let’s look at the three options set out above

Option 1 – run with the story

If you follow option 1, you would be broadcasting information which hadn’t been checked.

It’s late at night, the officer who told you about the incident had heard it second-hand from the vice squad.

What they told him was a colourful, off-the-cuff description of what they said they had seen. It was not an official report.

There is nobody to quote. You have simply been given a tip-off that something has happened. A man found with a prostitute has been given a caution. That is all.

If you write a 30-second voice report at this point, you will be at risk of defamation of character, based on unsubstantiated information. That is not journalism.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

In this option, the reporter is keen to preserve the cosy relationship they have with the local police.

The reporter knows that if they report what was said in the pub, the police might not open up to them in the future. That could damage future newsgathering efforts.

The reporter is quite content to let the police officer rule on what they can or can’t do with the information. But, in doing so the reporter has allowed the line between information-sharing and editorial control to be crossed.

That is not a healthy position.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

This is the preferred course of action.

You have been given background information, which you and your news editor now need to consider.

By applying the public interest test you will be able to assess what to do next, and how much effort should be put into further research, if any.

It could be that the man in question has been outspoken in the past about the need to clean up the sex industry in the city. Perhaps he’s been campaigning about sex trafficking.

If so, there might well be a public interest justification for further investigation.

You might consider putting a file together on the prominent public figure who is alleged to have been cautioned so that you are ready if and when the news finally breaks.

Such a file would be accessed by your online team, too, and probably contain a biography, videos and photographs of the man in public life as well as other background material.

But as for writing a piece for the next bulletin – no, there is nothing to report.

Not only because the information was shared off the record, but also because you don’t have any independent sources offering verified facts that have been double-checked to ensure that the information you broadcast is accurate, fair, and in the public interest.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events.

The post Off-the-record chat – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

How should a reporter respond when someone uses emotional pressure and threats to try to stop them doing their job? Every case will be different, but in this scenario we look at a situation where a reporter is begged not to cover a story, and then threatened with violence if they publish. What would you do in the circumstances?

Fair and accurate reporting of proceedings

You are a reporter working for the local newspaper in a small town.

One of the daily tasks is to cover the local courts.

The brief is to go along, read the daily case sheet, select those that you have either been told to look out for or which stand out as being particularly newsworthy, and then attend the hearings.

You will have learnt the rules for court reporting in the country you work in during your journalism training, and you will know what can and what can’t be reported under certain circumstances.

On this particular day you select three cases to cover.

One is a follow-up hearing to a case that your newspaper is already covering. The other two are new cases which you sense are likely to produce a few lines of copy (copy is the word used in the newspaper business for the text you submit to the news editor for approval).

Of those two, one turns out to be particularly newsworthy.

You take your seat in the press gallery along with reporters from other media outlets.

You have a clear view of proceedings, and of the pubic gallery where those with an interest in the case sit.

As you leave the court a woman, who you had seen in the public gallery, approaches you.

She is agitated and begs you not to write a news report about the case.

She says the incident her adult son has been charged with was “a set-up”, that he is innocent, and that if you publish the story it will “ruin his life”.

She tells you his wife has recently given birth and he needs his job to keep his family housed and fed.

If the story runs in the local newspaper, she says, “he will be finished”.

By this point the woman is becoming emotional.

A group of people has gathered around you both.

A man steps forward and prods you in the chest with his finger saying, “Don’t forget, we know where you live.” He then pushes you and you fall back against the wall banging your head in the process. Your colleagues from the other media outlets witness the scene.

What should you do?

1: You should listen to the concerns of the woman and, having been told about the negative impact your report might have, agree not to write about what you heard in court. You are working in a small town, it’s one of those places where everyone knows everyone, your by-line will be on the piece, and it will be much easier for all concerned if you just forget the hearing took place.

2: You should jot down what the woman is saying and question her more about her son’s family, the new baby, where he works, what he does, how he spends his leisure time. This is a great newsgathering opportunity, and she is giving you loads of quotes. The added excitement about you being prodded and threatened all adds to the piece. You could weave in what was said in court with what was said outside. You are already thinking up headlines to suggest to the subeditor: “Reporter assaulted leaving courthouse”, “Local man faces ruin if found guilty”. Try to take a picture of the woman if you can.

3: You should explain to the woman that it’s your duty to report back to your editor on what happened in the court. Tell her that you will report only that which is allowed under the court reporting rules, and that it’s up to your editor to decide whether the article will be published or not. If she has any issues with that she should take it up with the newspaper.

Which is the right approach?

Nobody likes to read bad news about themselves or their families in the local newspaper, so it’s not unusual for court reporters and newspaper editors to come under pressure from those who feel that the publication of information could have a damaging impact on their lives.

When I was a local newspaper reporter such pressure was common.

But your job is to produce a fair and accurate report of proceedings, within the rules set down by the courts.

The task you had been set by your editor that morning was to attend the court, read through the charge lists, select which hearings to cover, cover them, then report back.

It was not to discuss with relatives of any of the accused how reporting the facts as set out during the court proceedings might affect the lives of their loved ones.

I suggest option three is the right response. As a reporter you need to retain your integrity by dealing with situations in a fair and accurate manner. You must not be pulled or persuaded by interested parties.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events. 

The post Dealing with emotional pressure in journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Taking part in an organised media trip

You are a reporter in a city with a large army base.

The anniversary of the end of a military invasion is approaching.

Tensions still exist between the two countries involved.

A political resolution has still to be reached.

No-fly zones are in force.

A battalion, based in the city where you work, has been sent to the country to begin a year-long tour of duty.

The army invites selected media representatives from your city to spend a week in the country under the protection of the battalion.

You are chosen as a radio reporter. You will be accompanied by three other journalists. One from a local weekly newspaper, another from the city’s daily newspaper, and a freelance reporter from a news agency which supplies the national newspapers.

The four of you are to be embedded for the trip, meaning that all of your activities will, supposedly, be organised and monitored by your military hosts.

As part of the deal you have to agree to a code of conduct, set out by the army’s media office.

You are told that you are not to operate outside of the framework of the trip – which is set out for you in terms of where you should go and who you should talk to.

You are issued with military clothing appropriate to the conditions in which you will be working.

Throughout the trip you are closely chaperoned by army media officers who arrange helicopter trips over the battle zones, set up interviews with senior military figures, and help arrange visits to a satellite communications vessel so that you can file your regular reports.

The four journalists spend the week in close proximity. They are not allowed out of their minders’ sight.

The journalists talk among themselves a lot. They discuss what they will be filing, and what storylines they will be covering.

Because they are all being exposed to the same information, there is little difference in what they file. The usual editorial tensions of working closely with competitors appear not to exist.

The group is well aware that this is little more than a public relations stunt by the military, but all four are keen to take part in order to experience travelling to a war zone.

Towards the end of the week, you and the other three journalists are told you are being taken on a trip to a remote settlement where an estimated 70 soldiers had died during the fighting.

You are shown a battlefield and told that the army engineers have been carrying out an extensive operation to remove what they say are live booby traps – explosive devices attached to corpses – so that local farmers can return to the land.

As you approach, there is a loud explosion. The army minders are distracted. The group of four reporters is separated.

Close by, half a dozen locals have gathered, presumably attracted by the noise of the helicopters when you landed in the area.

Two of the four reporters take the chance to talk to them. You are one of them, the other is the freelance news agency reporter.

One local resident tells you more about the booby traps. He says they have to deal with them on a daily basis. Livestock is being killed. Parts of their land are no-go areas. Another backs the claims. You turn your tape recorder on.

They say they are angry that not enough has been done to protect the local community. They claim that yours is the first visit by the army to the area since the end of the war.

The freelance news agency reporter takes notes. You have the interview on tape.

You return to base. The army minders arrange a meeting with all four journalists during which they set out what can and cannot be reported from the scene. Neither you nor the freelance reporter mention your conversation with the local residents.

The minders inform the group that there will be a trip to the satellite communications vessel later that evening. All four reporters start to write.

You suspect that the freelance news agency reporter will be filing a report about the conversation with the local residents. You fear that he will have a scoop and you will appear to have missed the story.

You need to consider, in the light of what you have seen and heard – and the debriefing meeting with the minders – what you will transmit.

What do you report?

1) The trip you are on has been arranged and paid for by the military, and you had agreed to a code of conduct before taking part. You should report only what you have been told by the military. You were not expected to be exposed to unauthorised sources. And you have no way to verify what local community members said, which could be untrue.

2) You should request another meeting with the minders and your fellow journalists and tell the group that you chatted to the locals while they were distracted by the explosion, summarise what the local farmers told you, play your recorded interview to the group, and ask the army minders for a comment.

3) You should write two reports. One covering the day’s events in line with the rules you agreed to before taking part in the trip, the other covering the conversation with the locals. You should file both, and leave it up to your editor to make the final decision on what angle to broadcast.

Verifying conflicting information

In this case the reporter took the second option. He realised that the locals had offered another perspective on the booby trap clearance, and it needed to be checked. He couldn’t ignore it. He also felt that he should invite the army to comment on what he had witnessed.

Being open and honest with the group about what he had seen also removed the fear that the freelance reporter might break the rules to get a scoop that would then make it seem as though the others had missed the story.

In the event he discovered that both versions of the story were true. The army engineers had been involved in removing booby-trapped corpses for some months, but had only that week started to clear the area which the journalists were visiting. So the locals were telling the truth that this was the first visit to their area, but the army was also telling the truth that the operation had been going on for months – although not necessarily in the area visited by the journalists.

So, had the journalists reported the comments of the locals without checking they would have been correct geographically in terms of a small area, but wrong operationally in terms of a larger task being undertaken by military engineers.

In this scenario the reporter also referred up to his line manager when filing to ensure that his decisions, taken at the scene, were supported by a senior editorial figure.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

For journalists, clarity is as important as accuracy

The post Transparency and full disclosure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A young radio reporter is coming to the end of his first month on the job. He’s just been approved to drive the radio station’s news car, which means he can now go out on stories and broadcast live from the scene. He’s very excited.

He looks out of the newsroom window and sees a thick plume of smoke rising from the east of the city centre. He alerts the news editor who agrees he should take the radio car, get as close to the scene as possible, and report live into the next bulletin at 4pm.

The reporter arrives at the scene at 3:50pm. He parks behind two fire engines at the corner of a building which is ablaze.

The reporter has 10 minutes before he has to go live into the bulletin. He tries to find someone for a comment, but all the firefighters are busy trying to control the flames, while the police are trying to control the crowd.

However, one of the engineers operating the fire engine pump will talk. When asked whether there are any casualties, he says “Not that we know of, but there are still people in the building.”

The reporter sees a group of people carrying items out of the burning tenements. He presumes they are trying to salvage what they can from the flames.

He lives in a similar part of the city and in similar accommodation. He feels sorry for them.

At that point he decides on the top line for his live report – that people are still in the building trying to salvage what possessions they can.

He hasn’t even considered that he could be at a crime scene where looters are stealing items as residents flee their burning homes.

He raises the radio car mast. The vehicle is new. It has the radio station’s logo plastered all over it in red, white, and blue. The reporter can see the car is attracting attention.

A group of men, some with their faces covered, gather round the vehicle. Three police officers approach and try to block their way.

By now the reporter is sitting in the radio car ready to broadcast. It’s one minute to the 4pm bulletin.

He leaves all four windows half-open to try to capture the sound effects of the chaos outside.

The 4pm news jingle starts to play.

The news reader announces that there is a major fire at a city centre tenement block. He then says, “We are now going live to our reporter on the scene.”

The light on the reporter’s microphone goes green. He’s live. He starts his report…

“The fire has now spread to four floors of this five-storey building. Dozens of firefighters are trying to contain the blaze. Residents are still in the building. Many are trying to salvage what they can from their burning homes. Working together they’re stacking their possessions on the street.”

One of the police officers, who had been protecting the radio car while the reporter was broadcasting, bangs on the window and shouts, “They’re looting, you’ve got to move, it’s not safe here.”

Emotions and assumptions take over

What we have here is a situation where an inexperienced reporter, faced with a breaking news story, is expected to report live from the scene with little knowledge of what is really going on.

That is a common situation.

But the reporter has been carried away with the excitement of the event, and, in the absence of any credible information, and with no time for proper news-gathering or fact-checking, relies solely on his own emotions and assumptions.

And that is not good.

The fact that he lived in a similar inner-city area meant that he was unable to be objective; he immediately assumed those gathering possessions were similar to his own neighbours.

His emotions were high when he thought they were salvaging what they could. He made a false assumption and that polluted his report.

The story he had built in his mind from the moment he arrived at the scene was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was missing the importance of the event.

He was witnessing rioting and looting, not local residents working together to salvage what they could from their burning homes.

In such situations reporters must detach themselves from events, broadcast what they see, and avoid any assumptions.

If they are unable to find out what is actually going on from a reliable source, they should offer a situation report about what they can see in front of them.

There was enough eye-witness material to fill a 30-second report without adding guesswork.

Guesswork, assumptions, and emotionally charged observations are not part of breaking news reporting.

The report should have been limited to describing the flames, the smoke, the number of fire engines, the size of the crowd, and the number of police at the scene.

The reporter’s mistake was letting his imagination take over.

He was broadcasting false information to the station’s listeners.

This was before social media, but in today’s age of Facebook and Twitter, such an error could lead to a rapid spread of misinformation which would take on a life of its own as raw emotion and ill-informed reaction is added.

Lessons from this scenario

• A breaking news reporter’s job is to describe what is happening at the scene, you are not there to interpret without evidence. If you have facts that are sourced and verified, you should include them.
• It doesn’t matter what you think might happen next. Guesswork about the future has absolutely no value.
• You must avoid all assumptions when compiling a report. Assumptions are fine when you are trying to work out what the story is during the research stage, but they then must be verified or discarded during the fact-checking process – they have no place in live situation reports.
• Adjectives and adverbs have little value in live breaking news reporting. The facts are strong enough on their own. The audience doesn’t need your subjective take on things, or your own personal value judgements.

Related modules

Accuracy – scenario

Accuracy in journalism

How to avoid make-believe journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

The post Emotional assumptions – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Spotting fake news through good practice

Here we discuss fake news or false news. We look at what these terms mean for journalists and the different kinds of fake news that exist. Then we offer guidance on how journalists can fight fake or false news through good practice and the use of ‘Trust Chains’.

Fake news

Fake news or false news can mean one of two things. It can be either:

1. a made-up, untrue story or invented “fact” that has been written or presented to seem genuine, or
2. an accusation that a genuine news story or actual fact is false, in order to undermine it.

Made-up news or facts (meaning 1 above) have been around for centuries. Although there are some rare exceptions when it is permissible to make up so-called “news” – for example in comedy or fiction – overall, false news is wrong and should not be produced by ethical journalists.

The second meaning (2) was made fashionable more recently by US President Donald Trump to describe news stories he disliked, usually because they criticised him. Although Trump started the current popularity of this meaning, many other people now use it, mainly people with power who dislike what professional journalists say about them.

For a full description of the controversy over fake news, you can read this article in TheNewsManual … Now!

Fake news has been around since mankind first started communicating and for hundreds of thousands of years it existed amongst a mixture of myths, legends and provable facts.

What we might recognise today as news only started in western societies a few centuries ago, and then in things like political pamphlets pushing a particular ideology or view of the world. Today’s tradition of objective journalism is actually quite modern.

Objective journalism produces stories based on provable facts, supported by evidence, accurately relayed and representing all aspects of any controversy without bias.

This definition of news is the one used in modern democratic, free-speech journalism, of the type supported by The News Manual. You can read more in several chapters, especially Chapter 56 ‘Facts and Opinions’ in Volume III, Ethics and the Law.

Different kinds of fake news

There are many kinds of fake or false news and many different reasons why it is produced.

In a 2018 UNESCO report titled “Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation”, (download the PDF of the report here, or go to the bottom of the page where it is embedded) the editors identified three specific types they called misinformation, disinformation and ma-linformation. In practice they break down into four types, with increasing levels of wrongdoing:

Genuine errors

At the lower end of the spectrum there is news that is wrong because of mistakes, carelessness, genuine misunderstanding or because the person generating the news or passing it on is not really good at it. This type of “fake news” has always existed and we generally forgive those responsible as “only human”.

Satire

One level down on the scale of harm is news presented as satire – or satire presented as news.

This is made-up news printed or broadcast in such a way that it is obvious to readers and viewers that it is not true, just a joke.

It is a tradition in many cultures for media to publish such stories on 1 April each year, ‘April Fools Day’. Usually no harm is done and the media organisation commonly identifies the story afterwards or leaves clues within the story showing it is made up.

But not everybody sees satire as harmless and people can be very offended when they think they are being fooled or made fun off.

Half-truths

Thirdly there is the kind of disinformation that takes real, provable facts and twists them, usually by selectively quoting some parts but not others. People usually do this to support their own belief system or a specific argument. Some of the news and opinion pieces to do with man-made global warming often fit into this category. It is not good practice, but many people regard it as part of politics.

Manufactured news

The most harmful kind of “fake news” is made up or manufactured in order to deceive, in such a way that it calls black white, it turns the truth on its head and maybe presents concocted evidence.

This seems like real news and is the most damaging kind of false news. Repeated often and long enough, this maliciously manufactured “fake news” not only damages the kind of rational discussion necessary for the functioning of democracy, but it leaves readers, listeners and viewers wondering just what they can believe, if anything at all.

It is very rare for such stories to be produced by most reputable media outlets, partly because journalists are trained to be cynical and check facts – there are usually systems of sub-editors and fact-checkers in place to assist – and because the publishers and broadcasters know that their readership and audience numbers depend on people coming back to them for news they can trust.

Social media and fake news

Social media have been blamed for spreading fake or false news. Indeed, surveys up to 2019 generally show that social media were the most mistrusted of all the modern media.

Social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat are far less trusted than traditional print and broadcasting – what we call “legacy media”. Social media have some very useful functions in the 21st Century, sharing experiences, connecting families and friends, warning of danger so fast even the emergency services use them. They are generally beneficial and here to stay.

But social media are not so good in the production and transmission of news. In some ways they have actually caused the current plague of fake news. The very things that make social media so popular also make them so dangerous in spreading fake news. Anybody can use them, they are instant and there are few controls over content or quality standards.

Social media also play a major role in the “amplification” of false news. One person sharing something with ten people who each share it with 10 more can quickly spread fake news to thousands or millions of people. That is why information or accusations on social media are said to go “viral”, i.e. like a virus in a one’s body.

What also makes fake news so powerful is that it resembles an extreme form of what makes real news, in that it is typically very unusual. Because it is wrong, it is not what people expect so they pass it on as news. The truth – which might be much more ordinary – is not so attractive and is therefore not shared as widely or as quickly.

The journal Science has published research that shows that false news on Twitter spreads faster to more people than the truth.

As the 18th Century Anglo-Irish intellectual Jonathan Swift wrote: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it”.

Trust chains

One of the main weapons against fake news, for both journalists and their audiences alike, is the Trust Chain.

A Trust Chain is what connects the source of an event – including speeches, interviews etc – with the final reader, viewer or listener, ensuring that the version of facts they receive remains true to the original.

Each time a fact or comment is passed on by someone in the chain, it is a new link that must be checked to make sure it comes from a reliable source who has already checked its accuracy.

The steps to creating and maintaining Trust Chains are simple and should be followed at all times.

Be honest with yourself, about yourself

We should always try to be honest with ourselves and with other people. If we don’t know if something is true, then we should not say it is, even when the admission strikes at the very heart of our own personal worldview.

Journalists are also members of society, so are able to have personal opinions of their own. But these must never be allowed to influence our professional work, however hard that might be. Remember to separate the you-at-work from the you-at-home.

Pass news forward honestly

Again, whatever you write or broadcast, you must be truthful with your reader, listener or viewer.

If you do not know something is true, then either you must not pass it on or you must admit its weakness to your audience. If you cannot confirm that a story or a fact is true yourself, then you must say how accurate – or possibly inaccurate – you are being.

If you know something that is widely known but has not been confirmed, explain that. For example:

It is widely believed that the Prime Minister will announce a new trade agreement with France this afternoon, though no-one in Government will confirm this and the French Embassy has said it is “unlikely”.

Journalists should wherever possible attribute facts or opinions about which there may be dispute.

Question doubtful information

Journalists are more than people who pass on information to their audiences. Anyone can do that, but journalists add value through their work by sorting through lots of information to pick out what is newsworthy, then check its truthfulness or accuracy before communicating it in a news item or current affairs story.

Journalists are a bit like food tasters, deciding what is good and what is not so good or actually bad.

At first this requires a lot of effort, and you will make mistakes. But after a few years your sense of taste – in our case “newsworthiness” – becomes more highly trained and we may even develop a “sixth sense” about information we find or are given.

Be alert to that sixth sense, listen to that voice that asks yourself: “Does this really sound right?”

That little voice is not the answer, but it is an alarm you should listen to. If your sense tells you something is wrong about a piece of information, check it out with greater care than normal. Often you will be right in doing so.

When someone tells us something that sounds even remotely doubtful, ask them: “Who says?” or “How do you know?” Said properly, it doesn’t need to be rude.

Track suspect information back to its source

The Truth Chain for any news story has a beginning and an end. Unless the journalist witnessed the start themselves, they will usually become part of that process part-way along the chain. If so, they must always think about where the story started. Who first discovered the information? Who first passed it on? Who else has played a role in transmitting?

There is a children’s game in most cultures that relies on people in a line passing on a simple message to the next person until it gets to the last person in the line.

The fun in the game is to see how very different even a simple message becomes by being repeated before it reaches the last person.

Journalists cannot afford to play such games. We must try to ensure that the message at the end is the same as it was at the beginning. That will often mean going back and asking people before you in the chain to check the accuracy and truth of it, before you yourself pass it on. As you can see, this is not done for laughs; for journalists, getting the truth right is a serious business.

Distinguish facts from opinions

Suffice it to say here that the strength of the Trust Chain relies on both (a) knowing the difference and (b) telling your readers, listeners or viewers what each element of your news story is – fact or opinion?

Some facts are so clear or so well-documented they can be relayed without attributing them to a source. But any facts that are controversial, contested or less-known and ALL opinions must be attributed.

You can learn more about attribution in the News Manual’s Chapter 9 and about sources in Chapter 59.

Find trusted, tested news sources

As a journalist, you are largely reliant on other people telling you things, so try to find and follow people you know you can trust.

If you work for a professional news outlet, it will have a list of other news organisations – such as news agencies – that provide reliable information which is so vital for a strong Trust Chain.

Be aware that you cannot simply ignore your “sixth sense” if it tells you that something from one of your reliable sources seems doubtful. Check out all information that seems questionable, even if it comes from a previously trustworthy source.

Check against other professional media

Do not rely on one source for any information you receive that is even slightly doubtful or controversial. Check on multiple sources. Of course, they may all be wrong, but you lessen the chances of making a mistake if you search for good, accurate information as widely as practicable.

Most respectable professional news organisations have a “two-source rule”, meaning they must find at least two reliable and independent sources before they publish or broadcast something important.

Do not rely on the Internet

The Internet is just a means of moving information around – it is not a guarantee that information is reliable in any way. Websites are no more or less reliable that a social media feed, blog, tweet or post. What matters is the reliability of the people or the organisation behind the website.

As we have seen from the creation of “fake news”, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world creating fake news, either for their own amusement or because they are paid to do it, usually by a corrupt government or business.

Even when a website appears to belong to a trustworthy organisation, check it out. Check the real website address. For instance, if your backtracking leads to a website purporting to be The Australian newspaper but the URL is something like www.chewbacky123.com, you have to assume it is a “fake news” site, not the real Australian newspaper.

And do not take everything that is written even on real sites as Gospel. Many media organisations push their own views or those of their owners as opinion-disguised-as-fact, maybe telling half-truths or reporting things out of context.

We all have our favourite media we think we can trust, often because their politics or philosophy match our own. But do not take that for granted. Ask yourself: “Where did they get their information from?” If it is from their own correspondent and someone you can trust, then you are far safer than if the article quotes “online opinion”.

Regularly look at other newspapers, radio stations or TV news providers to see what other news sources say. If your favourite news bulletin is out of step with everyone else, it could be that it is better than the rest; but it could also be because it is worse.

The Trust Chain needs to be strong at every link, from the source event all the way to your brain and then all the way to the eyes and ears of your readers, listeners and viewers. After that, it is up to them.

“Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation”

The source of this training module is The News Manual’s Chapter Fake news & Trust Chains

The post Fake news and trust chains first appeared on Media Helping Media.

What to avoid when reporting on conflict

Reporting about conflict and working in a conflict zone is complex. Often the facts are not revealed in a way that offers the level of understanding the situation demands. The journalist needs to be sensitive, have an understanding of history, be aware of cultural issues, and put people before the story.

1: Don’t write in clichés

“The Heart of Darkness” is the title of a book by Joseph Conrad written in the early part of the 20th Century about a trip up the River Congo. It does not need to feature in every story about the Congo and especially not in the headline.

2: Don’t believe everything someone tells you

International NGOs by definition are on the side of the victim, the underdog. They are keen to generate interest in their perspective. They have a story to tell. Often that story is shocking in its own right without the extra tug of emotion, the extra twist given by the NGOs. This especially important when dealing in second-hand accounts of what eye-witnesses said.

3: Don’t hunt for the ‘definitive truth’

The truth is out there, but it’s incredibly hard to find it. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example. It is a huge country – bigger than Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland combined. As a journalist, unless you’ve experienced the situation first hand, you’ll have to rely on what someone else tells you. Do so with caution.

4: Don’t get things out of context

What you witness may be terrible locally, but be sure to offer national, regional, global and historical context to your reporting so that those you are informing have the widest perspective of the significance.

5: Don’t accept information without question

Facts are loaded. A review of the cuttings file on Congo will show you that 5.4 million people have died in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Do you know how this figure was arrived at? Do you know what period the statistic covers? If you don’t, then don’t use it.

6: Don’t forget the human face of suffering

Sexual violence and rape are terrible crimes. When reporting, don’t forget that all the headlines and stories written have a human face.

7: Don’t be sloppy with words

Use language with care. Genocide is a specific legal term with a particular meaning. It does not automatically follow that, because a large number of people have been killed, it’s genocide.

8: Don’t be led by another’s agenda

It’s all about timing. Remember that pressure groups will often release information to coincide with significant events in the political calendar. For example, UN Security Council debates are often previewed by NGO’s making demands calling for action. As a journalist, you set the agenda – don’t have it set for you.

9: Don’t ignore the local pressures

Congolese journalists work in a completely different political environment than the one you are lucky to work in. They face censorship (or self-censorship), harassment, intimidation and murder threats. They are often not able to report what they would like to.

10: Don’t ignore history

History repeats itself. Journalism doesn’t have to. Journalism should not be an accumulation of clichés ending with the latest addition to the mix. Think originally, think laterally. Find stories which tell the untold facts and which get beyond the clichés.

The post What to avoid when reporting conflict first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The circumstances and background

You have been sent to cover an incident at a border crossing following reports that a large group of asylum seekers is trying to gain entry to a neighbouring country.

It’s reported that shots have been fired and some people have been killed.

You arrive and see a child sitting by the roadside crying.

You think it’s been abandoned and take a picture. It’s a wonderful shot.

You call your news editor and prepare to send the image back to the newsroom.

The news editor is excited; pictures like this win awards.

As soon as you have sent the image, the child’s mother appears and picks the child up. It stops crying.

It seems the child’s grief was caused, mainly, by being separated from its mother.

Once it saw its mother it seemed to be happy – despite the chaos surrounding it.

The mother shouts at you for taking a photograph, and wanders off into the crowd with her child.

What should you do?

1. Pretend the incident with the mother never happened. You have already alerted the news desk. They want to use the image. The mother will probably never know and is unlikely to take action, and you could end up winning a journalism award for the picture.
2. Talk to your news editor, explain the situation but recommend that the image is used anyway because, although it’s not accurate, it does show the misery and suffering at the border crossing.
3. Look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Suggested action

The best course of action would be to look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Why option 3 the right answer

It’s all about accuracy and reporting honestly from a situation.

• Don’t just go for the shocking, sad and emotionally-charged images without finding out whether they really reflect the scene you are witnessing; to do so may be exploiting the victims and failing to uncover the true cause of the distress.
• Be sure that what you photograph accurately reflects the true situation and is not a distortion of reality; on the other hand, never ignore the one-off that could reveal an aspect of neglect or harm that has so far gone unnoticed.
• Never stage-manage a shoot to hype up the story; your job is to report through images what has actually happened.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

Transparency and full disclosure – scenario

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events. 

The post Photo journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

There has been a strike at a steel works.

The union claims all its 100,000 members were out on strike, but the employer says 50% turned up for work and defied the picket line.

You were reporting from the main gates of the steel plant all day and you didn’t see anyone crossing the picket line.

You witnessed the mass meeting after which all those taking part left and walked away from the steel works.

You didn’t see any action inside the factory grounds; it was clearly at a standstill with nobody but security staff on site.

So, the company says half the staff have defied the strike action, but the trades union says all its members were on strike.

How do you report the situation?

Do you:

1. Accept the union’s line and say that there was a 100% turn out for the strike.
2. Accept the company’s line and say that 50% defied the strike call.
3. Offer both versions and keep quiet about what you saw because it contradicts what has been said and could confuse the audience.
4. Offer both versions, admit you can’t confirm which is right or wrong, but describe what you saw in detail.

Suggested action

It would probably be best to go with option 4 and offer both versions, admit you can’t confirm which is right or wrong, but describe what you saw in detail.

Why option four?

As a reporter all you can do is report what you have seen and what you have been told.

You can attribute comments to those who made them, and add your own eye witness account of events.

You should say what the union leaders and the steel plant owners say happened – it is not your role to edit their claims.

However you also have a responsibility to describe what you saw happening around you.

In this case you could report that all the workers you saw moved away from the plant after the mass meeting, and that all you could see behind the factory gates were a few security guards patrolling the premises.

You should not directly contradict either of the claims made by the opposing sides in the dispute.

And you should not report in such a way that suggests one side or the other is attempting to mislead the public.

However, by setting out the facts as accurately as possible you will be doing your job as a reporter, even if it is obvious that the versions offered by the management and union leaders can’t both be true.

To sum up, your journalism must be:

• well-sourced
• supported by strong evidence
• examined and tested
• clear and unambiguous.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

Fairness in journalism

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events.

The post Accuracy – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism, PR or propaganda?

If the content you produce pushes an agenda, spins a line, favours a sector of society, promotes a certain initiative without question, is manipulated to achieve a subjective outcome, or has a desired objective, you are probably producing public relations copy or even propaganda.

Real journalism is based on applying strict editorial ethics to all we do so that we can examine the issues that have the most impact on the lives of our audience.

So, does your journalism pass the test? Consider the following questions to see whether your journalism is ethical or not.

Eight questions to consider

1: What is your journalistic purpose and what do you hope to achieve by doing the story?

2: What is your personal motivation? Do you have any vested interests in the outcome?

3: Have you included different perspectives and diverse ideas so that the journalism you produce is thorough and informative?

4: Have you ignored any elements that might appear to weaken the story you are writing?

5: Have you considered what motivates those you are interviewing?

6: Are all your questions fair, or are they leading or manipulative? 

7: What are the possible consequences of the story you are producing both in the short term and long term?  

8: Are you using those you choose to interview in order to strengthen your article without considering the possible harm they might suffer once the story is published?

9: Are you able to justify your editorial decisions to your colleagues, to those who you interview, and to the public?

10: Is your journalism original, well-sourced, accurate, and honest?

Seven rules for getting it right

1: Keep your eyes wide open – seek truth and report it as fully as possible.

2: Act independently – owe nobody and don’t seek favours or favourites.

3: Minimise harm – protect your sources, respect privacy, be aware of possible consequences.

4: Assess all facts – don’t ignore the uncomfortable, or that which goes against your script.

5: Seek out independent sources – don’t follow the flock, find fresh voices and perspectives.

6: Thoroughly check the validity of information – take nothing at face value and make sure you have researched and can justify the inclusion of every fact.

7: Be wary of subjective manipulation – don’t be swayed by those who want you to put a positive spin on news.

Seven attitudes of mind

1: Be honest, fair, and courageous in your news gathering and reporting.

2: Give voice to the voiceless, scrutinise the executive and ensure your journalism holds the powerful to account.

3: Guard vigorously the role a free media plays in an open society.

4: Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives, especially those which are rarely heard.

5: Remain free of associations and activities that could compromise your ability to publish the truth.

6: Always consider how your journalism could impact the lives of those who feature in your coverage.

7: Treat all with respect, and not as a means to achieving your journalistic end.

A dozen rules on accuracy

1: All work must be well-sourced.

2: It must be based on sound evidence.

3: Your writing must be thoroughly fact-checked.

4: It must be presented in clear, precise language.

5: Avoid spreading unfounded speculation, rumour and gossip.

6: Accuracy is more important than speed. Never rush a story to be first with the news. Better to be second and right rather than first and wrong.

7: Ensure you always weigh all the relevant facts and information in order to get to the truth.

8: If an issue is controversial you must always include all relevant opinions so that your reporting is not one-sided.

9: Gather material using first-hand sources wherever possible.

10: Ensure you read through everything you write.

11: Check the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

12: Corroborate claims and allegations made.

Six considerations regarding impartiality and diversity of opinion

1: Always strive to reflect a wide range of opinions.

2: Always be prepared to explore a range of conflicting views.

3: Never ignore any significant strands of thought or under-represented groups.

4: Exercise your freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.

5: Ensure to avoid bias or an imbalance of views on all issues, particularly controversial subjects.

6: You will sometimes need to report on issues that may cause serious offence to many. You must be sure that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence.

Seven criteria for deciding when news is in the public interest

1: Exposing or detecting crime.

2: Highlighting significant anti-social behaviour, corruption or injustice.

3: Disclosing significant incompetence or negligence.

4: Uncovering information that allows people to make informed decisions about matters of public importance.

5: Protecting the health and safety of the public.

6: Preventing the public from being misled.

7: Protecting issues of freedom of expression.

Fairness

Be open, honest and straightforward in dealing with contributors, unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise. Where allegations are being made, the individuals or organisations concerned should normally be given the right of reply.

Privacy

It is essential in order to exercise your rights of freedom of expression and information that you work within a framework which respects an individual’s privacy and treats them fairly while investigating and establishing matters which it is in the public interest to reveal.

Integrity

Always remain independent of both state and partisan interests. Never endorse or appear to endorse any organisations, products, activities or services.

Sources

Accept information from any source, but know you will need to make a personal decision as to which information is worth considering and which is not. Sources must always be checked, especially when dealing with first-time sources that have never been used before. It is important to protect sources that do not wish to be named.

The post Is your journalism ethical? first appeared on Media Helping Media.