Many find it difficult to distinguish between credible and misleading content in today’s digital age. With the rise of social media, false and misleading information has become more prevalent, making it even more difficult for people to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

It’s the job of the journalist to try to find and present the truth, but fact-checking isn’t easy. It requires a methodological approach to verification.

Because many media outlets are profit-driven, sensationalist and clickbait content frequently takes precedence over fact-based journalism. As a result, trust in journalism as a whole has declined, while, at the same time, skepticism about the reliability of information published and shared has grown.

The preference of social media platforms for engagement and amplification has contributed to the information disorder. Indeed, credible and evidence-based information is in short supply, while false and misleading content continues to spread on social media.

Because of this it is critical to have a strong fact-checking system in place to combat the spread of false and misleading information.

A fact-checker must be skilled at digital investigation and willing to go the extra mile to uncover a kernel of truth. To assess the veracity of information accurately, fact-checkers must be trained in and have access to digital tools, techniques, and resources.

Fact-checking in action

At Nepal Check, we use both human intelligence and digital tools to verify information spreading online. Over the past six months, we have fact-checked a wide range of false claims, from political statements to health misinformation.

On the eve of the November 20 2022 elections in Nepal, we fact-checked screenshots purported to be from a secret circular issued by the ruling Nepali Congress urging its supporters not to vote for Maoist candidates.

Not only was the so-called “secret circular” made up. Election misinformation spreaders created screenshots of ‘news’ that claimed to have been published by reputable digital outlets and a newspaper in Nepal.

We dug deep into the misinformation spreaders to find out what party they were affiliated with. We found that the majority were affiliated with an opposition party that competed with the ruling alliance.

One of the fake news reports had a reporter’s byline. The claim was refuted by the reporter himself. In the fact-check, Nepal Check cited him. We also cited news outlets that claimed the screenshots were fake. In addition to relying on their statement, we checked the claims on news websites.

Finally, our investigation revealed that the Nepali Congress party’s Central Working Committee had not met in nearly three months when the meeting was claimed. We also used the occasion to explain how morphed screenshots are created. In doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the technique so that people would think twice before spreading false information.

We fact-checked videos with false claims that Gagan Thapa, the general secretary of the Nepali Congress, promised freebies if elected prime minister. Thapa is a popular politician and is often the target of misinformation. The video claiming Thapa promised free smartphones, free petrol and a monthly stipend for the elderly had circulated on social media for several months.

To debunk the claim, we needed to find the original, full version of the video. So we started by looking up the video on YouTube. We discovered a video of the political function, but it lacked the section where Thapa was quoted. However, the video provided an important clue that a fact-checker can use to conduct additional research. It displayed the event’s date and location.

With this vital information, we were able to locate the event organizer’s Facebook page. A further Google search led us to the full version of the video, which had been published by a local television station. We found that Thapa’s statement had been taken out of context in order to spread misinformation.

Thapa had argued that while populist programs receive widespread support, they are difficult to fund. To disseminate misinformation, the video, which was more than an hour long, was edited down to a 22-second clip. We could verify this by following the claim back to its source, which is an important aspect of combating misinformation.

Human intelligence and engaging the audience

While the digital age creates opportunities for the spread of fake news, misinformation and disinformation, it also creates opportunities for fact checkers to follow digital trails in order to try to find the source and the veracity of the information being shared.

The fundamental journalistic skills of fact-checking are not new, they just need applying to the digital age. Our duty, as always, is to publish accurate, fair, objective, impartial and well-sourced information, backed by well-researched context and analysis. That has not changed. And digital tools are a massive help in the pursuit of robust and critical journalism. We just need to make sure we are using those tools as well as those who propagate falsehoods do.

All newsrooms must have a fact-checking team made up of dedicated journalists who are skilled in thorough research and diligent scrutiny in order to ensure that all information shared is a true representation of news events.

Below is a list of some of the tools Nepal Check uses, and how we use them.

Human intelligence

• Research who is behind the information being spread, try to find a trail of similar information to lead you to the source.
• Does the fake news item carry a byline? Does that person exist? If they do contact them. By doing so you might find a new lead in your search for the truth.
• Does what is being said stand up to historical scrutiny? Research and establish the sequence of events leading up to the claims.

Digital tools

• Is the evidence real or manipulated or used out of context?
• Are screenshots real or fake, can you find any evidence of the original material online or in print? If not, why not? Who could have created the screenshots and why?
• Is video being used? Has a clip been taken out of context? As a journalist you have a duty to search for the original, watch it in its entirety, and offer a more complete picture including the situation and circumstances in which it was shot in order to add context and relevance.
• When you find the original you will also discover the date and, possibly, the location of the original material. Do these match the details in the clip?
• Check all social media links back to the original source to find out what other material has been shared.

Engaging your audience

• Be totally transparent in your myth-busting research.
• Let those who read your journalism know the steps you took and the evidence you uncovered.
• By doing so you will help them understand more about fake news and empower them with the tools to do their own fact-checking.

The post Creating a strong fact-checking system first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism is about far more than simply gathering information and passing it on. An essential part of the editorial process is to examine everything we are told to make sure it is factual, and then add context so that any facts that are uncovered are considered alongside existing knowledge.

The author skyfishgoo wrote in a piece about critical thinking that “science and journalism both seek to put facts in context so they become useful to others”. He goes on to say that “science dictates that when a claim is made it is subject to critical review”.

Giving content “a bit of a scrub”

Put simply, he says that all of us have a responsibility to give every new piece of information that comes our way “a bit of a scrub” before passing it on to others.

This is particularly important in terms of producing original journalism and then broadcasting or publishing that material and sharing it on social media.

Once a piece of journalism is in the public domain it will be referenced, quoted, and possibly plagiarised as it becomes part of the global conversation. If that piece of journalism is untrue, then lasting damage will have been done.

But let’s first agree what is meant by the word ‘fact’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a fact is something that is “known or proved to be true”. It is also “information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article”. In legal terms, a fact is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation”.

And that last definition is interesting, because journalists ‘interpret’ events by adding context – but more on that later. For now, let’s refer to facts that have not yet been fully tested as ‘claims’.

Here are a few tests that should be applied to information that a journalist receives from someone who ‘claims’ that what they are passing on is factual.

The first three tests are about source verification and fact-checking, the fourth is about adding context.

1: Is the source credible?

• What do we know about the source?
• What is their motive for sharing the information?
• Could the source have an agenda about which we are not aware?

To Do: Research the background of the source, their connections, any previous record of sharing information.

2: Has it happened?

• Could there be a simple explanation?
• Has your source been misled? If so, by whom?
• Is there a history of such an event taking place?

To Do: Research the chronology of events. Check your own news organisations archive. Search the web.

3: Where is the evidence?

• Is the information available elsewhere?
• What is the evidence to support the claim?
• Has that evidence been tested?

To Do: Seek out a second, independent and trusted source.

4: What is the context?

• What are the implications if the claims are true?
• How many people are affected and how?
• Gather data and statistics for comparison purposes.

To Do: Paint the bigger picture, understand the importance of the event in relation to other news stories.

Those of you who are new to journalism might want to print out the following checklist and put it on the wall in your newsroom as a reminder.

If the results of your research make you feel uneasy you might want to drop the story. However, even a false claim, presented as fact, but, on investigation, found to be untrue, could still be a story. It could point to a political, commercial, or social conflict that might require investigation.

Never rule out a possible news story because the initial evidence presented proves to be shaky.

Now let’s look at point four ‘the context’ more closely.

Adding context

One dictionary definition of ‘context’ is: “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”

That word, ‘understood’, is important.

The role of a journalist is to enhance understanding. We do that by surrounding proven facts with data, statistics, history, and circumstances that, together, help paint a fuller picture of what has happened.

Think of it this way.

Imagine you are at home watching a series on TV. It’s the final episode of six. Just as the programme is reaching the conclusion there is a knock at the door. It’s a friend you haven’t seen for some time. You welcome them in.

As they walk through the door there is a scream from the lounge. One of the characters in the TV series has discovered the gruesome remains of a body. Your guest is shocked, but fascinated.

You offer to turn the TV off so you can chat, but they are so intrigued by what they saw on the screen that they ask you whether they could watch the programme with you, particularly as it’s reaching its conclusion. They want to know what happens next.

So you pause the programme, put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and tell your guest about what has happened so far.

You explain who the characters are, what has taken place in previous episodes, how the situation has developed, the relationships between the characters, what clues you have picked up along the way, and how the plot has thickened to reach the point where your guest heard the scream.

And explaining the background proves to be important because your friend thought you must be watching a murder mystery, when, in fact, the series you were watching was a documentary about archeology. The scream was from an archeologist who had unexpectedly found mummified remains. It was not a modern-day crime thriller.

Now your guest has the context, so you can watch the end of the final episode together, with your guest informed about the background to the story and better able to understand events.

The same is true with journalism.

A colleague who was working as an intake editor on a news desk remembers receiving a call from an off-duty reporter who had just passed an overturned red double decker bus on  a London street. People were wandering around with blood pouring from wounds. Two camera crews were mobilised, but before they’d even left the building the reporter discovered that it was a film crew making a movie. The story had changed once the reporter had checked his facts and explored the context.

I made a similar mistake when reporting on a fire at an inner city block of flats in Liverpool. I reported live into the 4pm news bulletin saying that residents were trying to salvage what they could from their burning homes. I was wrong. Had I checked my facts, not made assumptions, and taken time to establish the context of events I would have discovered that I was witnessing rioting and looting. You can read about that experience and the lessons learnt here.

The challenge all journalists face is not just to report the news but to also set out the background to an event as well as all related events in order to help the audience understand the elements of a story which they might otherwise find hard to comprehend – or even reach the wrong conclusion.

Perhaps it involves researching and setting out the chronology of events that have led to the current breaking news story. These can be presented as related stories.

You might need to research the backgrounds of the characters involved as you look for any social connections to anyone else involved. These can be presented as profiles.

Essentially, what you are doing is gathering as much information as possible in order to put together the most detailed, in-depth, and informative account of what has happened.

All this illustrates that journalism helps people make sense of the world – not just what’s happening, but why it’s happening. Stories that raise questions without even attempting to address those questions are weak stories.

• A bridge has collapsed. Why?
• A racing driver stops his car while leading the race. Why?
• A politician resigns. Why?

A news story without context can never be completely understood. A news source that is not verified can never be completely trusted. A claim, left unchecked, might not necessarily be a fact. And a news story without fact-checking and context could add more to the cacophony of confusion than to the enhancement of understanding.

If you found this interesting and, perhaps, helpful, you might want to check our other, related training modules.

Accuracy in journalism
The basics of fact-checking
How to identify and deal with fake news
Dealing with disinformation and misinformation
Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

The post Fact-checking and adding context first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Treating sources with respect

Producing a piece of original journalism involves uncovering facts that, had it not been for you, would have remained hidden.

Your work will, however, probably include material that was already in the public domain; only your original idea and the final revelation might be new.

Journalists regularly have to refer to material created by others in the course of compiling a report.

Sometimes we get an idea for a follow up piece having seen an item on the TV news, heard something on the radio, spotted an interesting line in a newspaper, or been alerted to an event via social media.

In such cases, the original stimulation for following up a story comes from another source, which means that the story has not been created solely through our own original investigations, contacts, or research.

That doesn’t mean that the follow up piece you plan to write will be any less important; many great stories can be developed by reading what others have covered and finding a unique angle that has previously been missed.

We then embark on creating a new piece of content exploring the angle we want to focus.

That will become a piece of original journalism that will, hopefully, enhance the audience understanding of the issue being covered in a way that hasn’t been done before.

Original, copied, reworked

In another module on this site ‘Strategic forward planning for media organisations’ we looked at some of the sources of news available to media organisations, and underlined how it’s important to create original journalism.

We expanded on that theme in another module ‘Establishing a market differential with original journalism’ where we looked at how journalists can produce more than 10 original stories a week by investigating the issues that are of most concern to their own target audience.

But what should we do when we are following up stories created by others? What is the correct level of attribution? And how much of the original content should we use when mentioning the article to which we are referring?

These were some of the questions mailed to this site by a specialist writer asking advice on the best way to reference the work of others.

His skill is spotting angles in news stories and then producing detailed in-depth reports.

But he was unsure how to do so in a way that respects the original content, offers proper attribution, and avoids any suggestion of plagiarism.

Attribution for news sources

My own rule would be to use as little third-party material as possible.

Perhaps just refer to the headline and then sum up the gist of the article in one sentence, offering attribution and links where appropriate.

I would never copy any of the body text over to my own report unless I was offering a direct quote about what had been said.

Let’s look at how to follow up an angle to a story.

Say, for example, that there has been a fire at a clothing factory in which 350 people died.

The local newspaper claims the factory was a so-called ‘sweat shop’.

The reporter who wrote the piece had quotes from surviving workers that suggested there were inadequate employee safety regulations in force.

The newspaper reported eyewitness accounts that claimed that the factory floor was overcrowded, that emergency exits had been blocked with boxes of stock, and that the room was locked from the outside.

They claimed there was no health and safety training, and that many of the workers were non-registered and didn’t belong to trade unions.

There was no comment from the factory owners.

Let’s imagine you are an industrial correspondent who specialises in workplace safety and employer/employee relations. You read the line about safety and decide you would like to follow up the story.

You might feel compelled to write a headline ‘How safe is the clothing industry?’ in which you explore the issue and, in your piece, make reference to the original story that prompted you to investigate.

You might decide to write something like this:

“The Smallville Examiner’s report into the fire in a clothing factory that resulted in 350 deaths claimed that overcrowding and blocked emergency exits were part responsible for the high death toll.”

But is that safe?

The Smallville Examiner had included the name of the factory. They claimed to have spoken to the owner who, they reported, had said “no comment” when asked about safety conditions.

You haven’t spoken to the owner. So can you report the allegations and the response? Well of course you can, but is it safe to do so? Probably not.

The owner might be taking legal action against The Smallville Examiner. He or she might take legal action against you, too.

So, unless you have the time and resources to interview the owner, you had probably better keep it simple. Perhaps you would write something like this:

“Following the fire at a local clothing factory, which claimed the lives of 350 workers and was first reported in The Smallville Examiner (link to the report), we look at health and safety provision in the clothing industry and ask whether safety measures are tight enough.”

Here you have attributed the information to the source. You have briefly summarised what was reported, and you have provided a link. That’s probably all you should do at this point in terms of reference and attribution.

Now you can proceed with your piece.

In the case above you are simply reporting information which is already in the pubic domain.

You must not copy and paste another news organisation’s content, and you must not copy the text and then try to rework or paraphrase it in an attempt to make it look like your own.

You must respect the original source of the information and give full attribution.

Attribution to specific content

If you wanted to use a specific line from a quote in a piece on The Smallville Examiner you would have to go one step further.

If human rights activist and photojournalist, Floyd Boyd, speaking to The Smallville Examiner, was reported as saying that “while sifting through the charred remains of the factory I came across boxes of labels from well-known Western clothing outlets which showed they were benefitting from illegal working conditions”, you would need to do the following.

It would probably not be wise to write:

“The Smallville Examiner also carried an interview with a photojournalist who claimed to have seen ‘boxes of labels from well-known Western clothing outlets’ among the ‘charred remains’ of the factory.”

First of all it might not be true, secondly, those being accused might be preparing a fairly robust legal defence of the accusations.

What you could do is to try to contact Floyd Boyd to see whether he would confirm what he had said to The Smallville Examiner and expand on the point. He might even show you some of the pictures he took.

Once you have made contact, you could build on that interview and, gradually, make the story your own to the point that you could eventually drop any quotes from The Smallville Examiner and provide limited attribution, perhaps in the form of “in an issue first reported by The Smallville Examiner”.

Curation of content

Perhaps you want to do a form of ‘media review’ about an issue where you scour the web for information about a development.

You would need to make it clear at the beginning of your piece that it was a trawl of the most current references. So you would need to say something like:

• “Al Jazeera reports the story as [their headline goes here] in which they claim that [here you could paraphrase their main point and provide a link].”
• “Taking another view, The BBC claims that [their headline goes here] and they expand on the point to say [here you paraphrase the BBC line]” … and so on.

Tools for monitoring plagiarism

Plagiarism is rife. Many journalists just copy and paste. In some countries they genuinely seem to believe that copyright means they have a right to copy.

There are tools – many of them free – which help content producers check on plagiarism. Just search the web for the term ‘free plagiarism checker’ to see what’s available.

Some of these tools can actually tell how much of a piece of text has been reworked from the original and show percentage scores.

Some senior editors and sub editors working for major news sites actually copy and paste chunks of suspicious text into plagiarism checkers to make sure that the content they are being asked to approve is legitimate.

Social media

Of course social media turns all this on its head. Many rules are broken because:

1. often, those using social media are not journalists and don’t live by the rules, and
2. the big news organisations are unlikely to chase after a blogger or someone posting on Facebook or Twitter because it’s probably not worth it.

But that means that those who attribute content to “being discussed on social media” have the extra burden of checking where the original source material came from, and how far down the information food chain attribution applies.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, it’s far better to simply a) refer to sources, b) use extremely limited material in that reference, c) provide a link to the original material, and d) use as many qualifying words as you can without it looking silly – such as ‘according to’, ‘claims that’, ‘is reporting that’ etc.

Always try to make the story your own by finding your own sources revealing unknown facts – or interview those referred to in the original piece in order to find new angles on which to build your piece.

Most media organisations have the two independent sources rule. Even then, they will provide attribution to be on the safe side.

Does and don’ts

• Always check with your own senior editors and legal team to ensure you understand what your media organisation’s policy of attribution and referencing is.
• Never copy and paste the work of others.
• Always provide attribution.
• Never reversion or rework content to try to pass it off as your own.
• Always double-check facts, sources, quotes, places, times, dates etc
• Never accept what is written by others as fact.
• Always be honest about where you have found information.

This training module was written following an approach from a user of Media Helping Media for guidance on the issues covered. Please don’t apply any of the suggestions without first consulting your news organisation’s senior editorial staff.

Related training modules

Establishing a market differential with original journalism

Strategic forward planning for media organisations

The post Referencing, attribution and plagiarism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This training module was written for young people from remote rural communities in Zimbabwe learning how to record, edit and broadcast stories about their neighbourhoods using their mobile phones.

Applying journalistic rigour to everyday stories

The beauty of citizen reporting is that it can be fast and fresh, down-to-earth and uncomplicated, and, sometimes, reach areas not always covered by mainstream media.

It’s about reporting on something that people are concerned about, and presenting what they say in a way that those involved in the story can relate to.

It’s not, necessarily, meant to be complicated, or to looking stunningly professional. It’s not meant to try to copy professional media.

It often involves producing a report on a topic that, had it not been for you, the world would never have known.

And, free from many of the technical obstacles that might, otherwise, hold back others, citizen reporters can, sometimes, offer a perspective lacking elsewhere.

That’s all good. It offers another take on life. A view that is often hyperlocal, put together by enthusiasts, journalism students, activists or amateurs, and carrying the authenticity of the learning curve.

However, if we are to take our citizen reporting to the next level, and, instead of just covering stories as we find them, attempt to inform the public debate, we need to weave in elements of journalistic best practice.

We need to move from citizen reporting to citizen journalism.

Citizen reporting – the basic version

Typically, this is how citizen reporting plays out.

You’ve either stumbled across an important story, or you have been alerted to something happening. You might see an everyday event that you feel needs to be covered.

Perhaps the issue is unofficial roadblocks in Zimbabwe, where young people are preventing motorists from using urban back roads to avoid police checkpoints. The youths are demanding money from drivers.

It could be widows living in a remote village who are working together to make and sell jam in order to help their community survive.

Both are important stories.

Now, you could just set off, take a few shots, talk to a couple of people and edit together a short piece of, say, 1’30” to 2’00” that shows what is happening.

That would be fine. People might like to see the roadblocks and hear from the people involved. They might like to watch the fruit being picked and the jam being made. Nothing wrong with that.

They are interesting stories, they are local, they might have been missed by mainstream media, and people might be interested in viewing them.

And when the stories are shared on social media, people will probably click on them and share them with their own social network.

But the question is, could you have done more?

Did you ask the right questions? Did you dig around a bit to try to expand on what you saw?

Most importantly, will your reporting make a difference? Does it matter?

The challenge is to produce a piece of meaningful journalism that informs the public debate.

Producing citizen journalism that matters

It’s all down to planning. Let’s start with the editorial content.

Before you set off, spend some time thinking through what you might need in order to explore all the angles of the story.

If you have a colleague or friend you can talk to, bounce some ideas around with them.

You should be hoping to find answers to the six essential questions all reporters should be ready to ask. Those questions are what, why, when, how, where and who?

See our training module news writing for beginners.

Below are a few ways these simple questions could help you uncover information that might not otherwise surface from an ordinary interview.

• What: What is cause? What is the impact? What is the cost?
• Why: Why is it happening? Why does it matter? Why are people concerned?
• When: When did it happen? When will it be fixed? When will we know?
• How: How did it happen? How long will it take? How much did/will it cost?
• Where: Where did it happen? Where is the evidence? Where are those responsible?
• Who: Who is involved? Who is doing something about it? Who is affected?

You will probably think up many different variations on these six questions. But just considering these questions will ensure you are far better prepared than if you simply head off to the scene, smartphone in hand, trying to find someone who is willing to talk to you.

And asking just some of these six questions will also mean that when you return to edit your piece, you will have more interesting material to work with. You might also uncover a valuable follow-up angle so that you can revisit the story in the future.

There is nothing worse than returning from covering a story and realising you forgot to ask a crucial question.

Ensuring your citizen reporting looks good

Once you have planned your piece, you need to give some thought to the technical requirements.

What shots will you need? How will your piece start? This is often called the ‘establishing shot’ – which is the first few frames that introduce your audience to the story.

You will need to think about what ‘cutaway shots’ you might need. These are the short clips of detail that you might want to use to emphasis a point, cover an edit, or simply break up a longer shot.

And what shots might you need to end the piece? What image will work best with your final sentence?

Think all these things through before you go – or as you travel to the scene – and you will save yourself so much grief when you come to edit the piece later.

Give some thought to what sound effects might you need. It’s always good to shoot some background noise – ambient sound (sometimes called wild track) that can be used to help bridge edits when you return to your desk.

And gather enough material. Far better to have too many opening shots, details shots, close up shots and spare ambient sounds than not have enough.

Now we have content that is editorially and technically strong, we can start to piece together our report. This is where the citizen reporter starts to become a citizen journalist.

See our training module on interviewing for video journalists.

Adding context is essential

This next step is where you need to consider context. Context often answers the “So What?” question.

Numbers, data, statistics, history, geography and time are all valuable elements for adding context.

For example, let’s take the story of a fatal traffic accident on the road between Gweru and Bulawayo. A coach crashes. Many are killed and others are injured.

To put this story in context we need two of the elements listed above; numbers and history. Statistics would be good, too, but they might be hard to obtain.

Let’s keep it simple and start with the first two.

We need to find out how many are dead or injured. We also need to try to find out whether this is the worst accident of its kind, or whether it’s a common occurrence.

We need to find out how many such accident happen each year. Is this the worst year on record?

Numbers give us context. Without context the story lacks depth. Without depth we are not fully informing the public debate.

We can still do the story without the context. That’s fine. That is straightforward citizen reporting.

Publishing such a story is of value, and you might want to publish the raw version in the first instance to cover the breaking news story of the traffic accident. If so, go ahead, get a version out. Share it on social media. Let people know what is happening.

That’s a fine example of citizen reporting. However, a citizen journalist would want to develop the story. In mainstream media terms, they would now be covering the developing story.

Citizen journalists need to think through the story development angles.

Jot down a rough story plan

Before you set off, try to piece together a rough story plan.

Write down what you think the top line might be. Set out the questions you might want to ask. Think of the numbers you will need in order to add essential context, such as: How many? How much? How often? How long?

Consider where will you find two independent sources to help verify the story.

Imagine what you will need when you return in order to edit the piece.

List all the elements you will require. Far better to think these things through now, before you get to the scene, than kick yourself later for missing them.

You need to think of as many story angles and hooks as possible.

Write down all the possible related follow up stories that might be needed to fully explain what has happened. If you have time, research the background to the story.

Search online, post questions on Twitter and Facebook, try to gather as much information as possible, preferably before, but also after, you shoot the material.

A well-researched piece will be more likely to inform the audience than a first-impression piece.

See our module on how to create a structured news report.

Is the journalism you are producing ethical?

Next you need to check whether your work is ethically sound. There is an ethics section on Media Helping Media. Read through some of the training modules on that page.

Here are some of the main points to keep in mind.

Is your story accurate and fair?

Have you got your facts right? What about names? Have you got the right spelling? You may have to add text to your video to introduce the person. Ensure you get them to spell out their name and their title.

Have you inflated or promoted any information or angles to try to make things sound more or less dramatic than they really are? You must never dramatise information to try to sell the story to your audience.

See our training module on accuracy.

Is your story impartial and objective?

Did you manage to leave your own emotions at home, or did you take them with you when you shot the piece? Are you telling the story as it is, or are you pushing one particular line because you feel strongly about it?

You might feel passionate about an issue, but you must always rise above what you think in order to present the reality of the situation as it is. Doing so enables those who view your piece to make their own assessment of what is happening without being influenced by your particular take on things.

Have you tried to include different voices to reflect as many sides of the issue as possible? Have you treated people equally? Could you be accused of favouring one side in the story?

See our training module on objectivity and impartiality.

What about privacy and consent?

Do those you are talking to know how the material might be used? Do they realise it will be shared on social media and, hopefully, go global?

Could your filming be an invasion of their privacy? Are they okay with that?

What about the vulnerable? Are you thinking of interviewing minors or people with learning difficulties? Have you got consent from their carers?

You may not need that consent if you are carrying out random interviews in the street – sometimes called vox pops – but you should seek it if you are talking one-to-one with someone who could be described as being vulnerable and who may not understand the consequences of what they are saying.

See our training module on privacy and consent.

Taste and decency matters, too

Also, keep in mind that the pictures you are shooting, and the audio you are recording, will be seen by people of all ages.

Consider whether any images are too graphic. Could they upset, offend and disturb some in your audience?

Are there other ways you can shoot footage to tell the story without being too graphic?

Have you included some images that disturbed you when filming them? Is there anything gratuitous about your piece?

Always err on the side of caution. If you feel uneasy then your audience will probably feel uncomfortable, too.

And finally, uphold your integrity

• Is what you have produced a true and fair reflection of what you witnessed?
• Is it free from your own emotions and opinions?
• Have you been honest with those you interviewed, your audience, and yourself?
• Can you stand by what you intend to publish?
• Can you return to the scene, look people in the face and justify your actions?

If the answer to any of the above is ‘no’, then take a fresh look at your script, the clips you have chosen, the top line you selected, and the conclusion you have reached.

And be prepared to rework the whole package to ensure it really is a piece of informative journalism, rather than another item that adds to the the noise and confusion surrounding the issue you planned to cover.

See our training module on integrity for journalists.

Packing your bags before you go

On the practical level, there are some basics that you need to consider before heading off to shoot a story. Here are 10 considerations. You will probably be able to jot down more.

1. Is your phone fully charged, and have you packed your charger?
2. Have you got enough credit on your phone?
3. Does someone know where you are going?
4. Check latest news reports to see if the situation has escalated.
5. Have you assessed all the dangers?
6. Are you about to take any risks?
7. Could anyone object to you filming and want to stop you?
8. Have you enough cash with you?
9. Are you dressed appropriately (you don’t want to stand out)?
10. What might be a follow-up angle to the story?

What to do when you get to the scene

Look around, absorb, sense the mood, watch what people are doing before they realise you are covering the story.

Take lots of wild track – if nothing else, it will come in useful if you need to edit sound effects under some of your shots when you are putting the piece together.

Identify those you want to interview, talk to them, win their trust, explain who you are and how the material will be used – including how you plan to share the story on social media.

Check the background lighting and the background sound. If needed, ask the interviewee to move slightly so that the material you shoot is good enough to use.

If it’s windy consider putting a piece of sticking plaster over the microphone on your smartphone to reduce the wind noise.

Be ready to deal with knock backs

A common issue facing citizen journalists is that people sometimes refuse to talk, especially officials.

You might approach a police officer, ambulance worker, or fire officer and ask for details about an incident.

They might ask for accreditation: “Who are you and who do you work for,” they might say.

You might not be accredited. You might be a freelance working for yourself. As a result, they might refuse to talk to you.

The same is true with government officials. They might ask you to submit your questions in writing to their office and tell you that they will get back to you.

That’s just tough.

You probably won’t be able to change that attitude, so don’t bother wasting your time trying.

Instead, use your ingenuity and news sense to seek out other voices that will help you substantiate your story.

All you need to worry about is finding two independent sources to verify the information you are about to publish.

Those sources don’t need to be senior officials, they don’t need to be people in authority. It would be nice if you could talk to someone in those positions, but other voices will work.

Keep asking around, talk to more people, seek out disparate voices that can offer diverse perspectives.

Continue until you have those two sources.

At that point, you are ready to edit your piece of unique, in-depth, citizen journalism. And, if you have reached that point, well done.

Related training modules

News writing tips for beginners

News sources, numbers and the ‘so what’ factor

Interview tips for video journalists

Story development, ensuring all angles are covered

How to create a structured news report

The post From citizen reporting to citizen journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This module was written for trainee journalists in Zimbabwe who were keen to learn how to produce in-depth video reports about life in their remote rural communities. 

Adding validity and context to news

Every news story needs at least one news source. This is where we get the information that creates the line or angle we decide to follow up.

Most news stories start with one source. That’s fine. The job of the journalist is to verify the information shared and then find at least one other source that can confirm what we have been told, or who can refute any claims made.

Typically, for a piece of information to be accepted as a fact, a journalist will require confirmation from two independent sources.

Our first source might be the publication of a document. It could be a person who has been involved in an incident or a witness to that incident.

It could be the publication of information through a news release. It could be something we have read in a newspaper, heard on the radio, seen on TV, or picked up on social media.

There are many forms of news sources. But if we have just one, we don’t really have a solid and reliable news story.

Most stories need a second, independent source

The challenge for all journalists putting together a news story is finding the second source.

For more complex, in-depth pieces, we often require a third and fourth news source, with each offering deeper insight about the issue being covered.

Let’s look at an example.

We hear of flooding in a village on the outskirts of Gweru, Zimbabwe. A local reporter goes to the scene.

They talk to Grace, a mother of four, who is found sitting outside the flooded remains of her home.

Grace talks first-hand about what happened overnight. She tells us that it is the third season running that her home has been washed away. And she claims the local authority has failed to take preventive action following the previous incidents.

Grace also claims that local residents fear a cholera outbreak because the flooding has caused raw human sewage to mix with the village’s water supply.

Clearly, this is an important story that needs to be told. And Grace is making some strong points.

We know, from what we can see, that there has been some devastating flooding overnight. When Grace says her home has been washed away we can see the evidence to support that claim. We can also see children playing in the polluted water around the damaged homes.

It seems the elements of the story are all there. In this case we probably don’t need a second source to confirm the flooding happened, it’s fairly obvious. A second voice would be good, perhaps another resident who has been affected.

But we do need at least one more source to respond to some of the claims Grace has made.

What if people in authority won’t talk to us?

Has the local authority failed to take action following previous flooding? We need to talk to a local authority representative.

But what if they won’t talk to us? In that case we need to talk to at least one more local resident who can support the claim that the local authority has failed to take appropriate action.

We also need to inform the local authority that, if they are unwilling to talk to us for whatever reason, we will need to make that clear in our piece.

We can do this in several ways, but a simple line saying “We approached the local authority but nobody was available to comment” might work.

Then we need to consider Grace’s claim that local residents fear a cholera outbreak.

Do they? We need to talk to a few more to see if this is a genuine fear, and, if it is, why. It could be that there has been an outbreak in the past. We need this information. And we need someone to confirm it.

Ideally, we need to find a local doctor, health worker, or a spokesperson from a health NGO working in this field, who can talk about the risks.

For our script, we need to be careful to understand the difference between the two words ‘fear’ and ‘face’. Grace may ‘fear’ a cholera outbreak, but does the village ‘face’ one?

We can report the fact that people ‘fear’ an outbreak, but, until we have our second source verifying that ‘fear’ we can’t say the village ‘faces’ an outbreak.

In this case, our important second source could change the whole focus of the story from a human tragedy story about Grace having her home washed away, to a potentially more serious story about a village facing a cholera outbreak.

The second source, having confirmed that the health risk fear could become a reality, means that we now need to go back to the local authority with a second question.

The first was to ask them what they are doing about the flooding. The second is to ask what they are planning to do about the health risks (which we have now been able to confirm with the local doctor or the NGO).

Data and statistics

Sources can also take the form of data/statistics/numbers. In the example of the flooding in the village near Gweru, we need numbers and dates.

How many times has this area been flooded? How many homes were washed away last year? How many people contracted cholera? If the local authority won’t talk to us, we should approach the local MP. If s/he won’t talk to us, then a village elder. If they won’t talk to us we need to talk to the relevant health authority.

Put simply, a journalist has to accept that some sources will refuse to comment, but we must never take a refusal to comment as a means of killing a story. Some with vested interests will want that outcome. They will be hoping that by repeating “no comment’ we will go away and the story will be forgotten. We need to continue to look for those second and third sources to verify the information we are compiling.

Producing informative journalism

Numbers are important, too, for making sense of what we are being told by our first, single source.

For example, let’s take another story, this one about young people on the outskirts of Harare recycling metal from the city dump.

Our reporter goes along and sees people separating various metals, melting some over a fire, and turning out pots and pans from the recycled material.

The reporter is told that young people “make a living from the city dump”. But what does that mean?

Using numbers to understand what we see

We need numbers. Numbers provide context. Context answers the “so what?” question. Most news stories need to answer the “so what?” question.

How long does a pan take to make? How much do the pots and pans sell for? How many do they sell in a day? What can that amount of money buy? Can it provide a day’s shelter and food for one person?

We could simply report that young people are recycling metal from the city dump making pots and pans that they sell. That’s of interest. It’s a reflection of life. But, as far as journalism is concerned, it’s just touching on the real story. And our job, as journalists, is to dig a bit deeper to add context and meaning – in fact to add the “so what?” factor.

Once we have the numbers about how many pots are produced, what they sell for, and what that money can buy, the story takes on a new meaning.

Through asking these questions we find out that young people are perhaps earning a living through scrap, perhaps able to feed a family of four for a week with one day’s work.

Now we can honestly claim that young people “make a living from the city dump”.

Numbers, second sources, and added information provide the context that turns an observation into a piece of journalism.

Let’s always seek out the second source. Let’s decide that we will never allow a refusal to comment to be used to prevent us from finding an alternative second source, or worse still lead to us dropping the story. And let’s also commit to finding the numbers that add the essential context and answer the “so what?” question that we should always be aiming to answer.

The post News sources, numbers and the ‘so what’ factor first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This training module was written as part of a course delivered in Africa to a group of journalists who wanted to learn more about creating in-depth news reports.

Exploring new angles in a news story

Seeking out new angles on a breaking, developing or running news story is an important part of the editorial process.

Journalists have a responsibility to think through and explain how news developments affect the lives of their audience.

This process often takes place in news meetings where editorial staff discuss the implications of events in order to decide which deserve further investigation.

However, a journalist working alone will often have to work out the most important angles for themselves.

How a story develops

News stories break in many ways. Sometimes the first we hear of a story is on the news wires.

At other times a journalist will have been digging around a topic and will have come up with information that deserves further investigation.

At this stage, often all we have are one or two facts. Our job is to find out more. As we do, the story develops.

Eventually, we would hope to publish or broadcast a comprehensive and informative report with all angles covered. So, let’s take an actual story and see how this works.

Researching behind the headlines

On January 12, 2012, a story was running on BBC News Online’s Africa section.

Let’s imagine we are in a news meeting on that day, discussing how to move this story forward. What questions would we ask?

Let’s look at the story, Kampala shops shut over Uganda interest rates.

The story reads: “Businesses in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, have closed their shops and are boycotting banks to protest at high interest rates.”

Possible angles:

• Which businesses?
• We need to talk to a few and find out how much they are likely to lose through the protest.
• How long can they continue without the banks?
• What are the alternatives?
• We need to know who their customers are and what they are going to do now the shops are closed.

The story reads: “A BBC correspondent says most shops are closed, leaving customers who travel to Kampala from across east Africa unable to stock up. Kampala is an east African trading hub and many of the people unable to shop have come from other parts of Uganda, as well as eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan.”

Possible angles:

• How do they get to Kampala?
• What are these goods that they are unable to buy?
• How are these goods usually transported back to the other areas of east Africa?
• What about those who make a living from transporting these people and goods?
• What are they going to do now? Can they survive?
• What are the implications for locals? How are they coping without supplies?

The story reads: “Business owners also say for the next three days they will withdraw all their savings from commercial banks and stop making any deposits into their accounts.”

Possible angles:

• Where will they put their savings now?
• Are there alternative safe places to deposit money?
• What are these alternatives and how easy is it to transfer funds?
• What is the possible long-term implication for businesses, the customers and the country’s economy?
• Why are interest rates so high?
• And how high are they and relative to what?

The story reads: “City traders have used this tactic before, in July last year, to protest over the country’s weakened currency and the presence of cheap goods in Chinese shops.”

Possible angles:

• What happened last July?
• Have we any archived material?
• Want promises and predictions were made then?
• How long did that action last?
• What were the implications?
• Can we do a compare and contrast of then and now?

Angles enrich news stories

So, from taking a fairly basic story we could develop more than a dozen related stories, each exploring the significance of elements in the original story in a way that could help the audience understand the possible impact of what is happening around them.

And as we explore the related stories, more story angles will come to mind.

Try it for yourself

Exercise: Break into groups of three, examine a story currently running on one of the major news sites, and find at least 10 angles which you feel could be explored, explain why they should be explored and set out how you would follow up each of those angles including who you would talk to and what you would ask them.

The post How to develop important news angles first appeared on Media Helping Media.