A recent closed ASJA Forum discussion initiated by member Mark Obbie unleashed a torrent of opinions and comments among members, with the underlying, recurring question: “What, can we, as professional journalists do about the constant spew of ‘fake news’ and misinformation that seems to have become our daily fodder?” The following two-part article aims to provide the scoop on sussing out sources of potential BS as well as navigating the written and verbal chunks of same littering today’s information highway.
PART ONE: “Just the Facts Ma’am”
Despite specializing in narrative journalism, criminal justice and business, ASJA member Mark Obbie no longer watches television news. “There’s a complete lack of transparency between commentary and fact-based information,” he observes. “We have no way of telling whether the material comes from a known entity. And it’s extremely disheartening because much of the American public gets its information from the various networks.” Not to mention Facebook and – dare one mention it? – Twitter.
Now more than ever it’s essential to not only research your sources but check them twice and if need be, three times. For example, even the phrase “Just the facts, ma’am” popularized by the old “Dragnet” TV show springs from an urban legend. According to Snopes.com, actor Jack Webb, who portrayed Sgt. Joe Friday said things like “All we want are the facts, ma’am” or sometimes “All we know are the facts, ma’am.” The actual phrase “Just the facts, ma’am” evolved from a satirization of the popular series by comedian Stan Freberg.
While it may be unnecessary to parse the origin of every expression quite this closely – many of us make a living in the 750 word or less content-verse these days – the evolution of this phrase mirrors something that has become increasingly important to discern – the mother lode from which our material springs. “We as writers need to be especially sensitive to this,” continues Obbie, because, whether we realize it or not, even our most beloved and trusted news sources “may be colored by whatever entity it comes from.” For example, The New York Times and NPR may be considered more “liberal” in some quarters, so in addition to local newspapers and other mainstream sources like USA Today, the Wall Street Journal as well as Snopes and other debunking sites, Obbie also peruses the more conservative National Review. “The point being to avoid getting wrapped up in the bubble of one perspective and miss vital, key facts that will lend itself to intelligent and original reporting.”
Among the numerous online guideposts springing up are False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources, a Google Doc/whitepaper by Melissa Zimdars, Assistant Professor of Communication and Media at Merrimack College. Zimdars and her research team also curate http://www.opensources.co a resource of 900+ online information sources, which range from “credible to misleading and outright fake,” according to the site and sorts them into various categories, from “Satire” to “Conspiracy Theory” to “Rumor Mill” to “Junk Science” to “Hate News” and more.
The Google Doc/white paper includes tips for analyzing news sources, such as suspicious or funky domain names (for example, “Newslo”) and suffixes like com.co, which can be spoofed versions of actual sites. Other things to look for include lack of attribution, checking the “about us” and source of the site, use of inflammatory phrasing/linguistics as well as caps, which are often denoted as shouting. Additionally, “if the other major news sources aren’t covering the story, you should be skeptical,” states Obbie.
Social media is another consideration. “Relying on Facebook, like changing someone’s mind there, is usually a losing proposition,” he continues. Still it can be a barometer of opinion that might prove useful, if only to debunk.
Along with checking for “clickbait,” posts utilizing sensational or inflammatory language to attract likes, clickthroughs and shares, Zimdars recommends examining headlines and social media descriptions to make sure they reflect the content within, also helpful in identifying misleading sources.
“As journalists, we spend most of our working lives trying to find the truth,” observes Obbie. While we may not always get it right, we can at least look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning, knowing we’ve done our best to uphold the First Amendment.
Next week: Navigating the “Post Truth” Litterbox, er, Minefield