contentious.com

Over at MWGblog, podcaster extraordinaire Michael Geoghagen noted yesterday that, after being interviewed for 50+ media stories on podcasting, for the first time ever, “I had a reporter contact me specifically to verify a fact regarding a statement someone had made about a podcast I produced.”

See: “Hope for journalism”

Ah, the elusive fact-checker… Here’s what I commented over on Michael’s blog, plus a few additional tips on fact checking…

I commented:

Hi, Michael.

Yep, that’s the “dirty little secret� of journalism — formal independent fact-checking rarely occurs. In the 100+ interviews I’ve given over the years, I’ve received follow-up calls from fact checkers exactly three times.

On the other hand, when I’m doing journalism I know that my own stories are generally not independently fact-checked. However, I do generally make efforts to independently verify facts, statistics, etc. given to me by sources if my source is not the primary source.

The practice of journalism is by no means pure. Independent fact-checking takes time and costs money, and is generally treated as a luxury. It’s done scrupulously only in the most legally sensitive stories.

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

Fact-checking is an important and useful practice. Just because many news organizations treat it as a luxury doesn’t mean you have to.

Here are a few fact-checking tips:

1. Get this book: The Fact Checker’s Bible, by Sarah Harrison Smith. It’s a short, practical book, focused on the whys and hows of fact checking. The techniques covered in this book aid original reporting and research (especially evaluating source material) as well as checking up on others’ work.
2. Always ask for primary sources on the spot. It saves time and prevents tangents based on speculation. If you’re doing an interview and the subject throws a statistic at you, stop her right there and ask for the source of that statistic. If your source quotes someone else secondhand, make sure you know specifically who’s being quoted and from where, so you can follow up on that later if it’s important.
3. Read the fine print. This is especially important when citing studies or statistics. What’s the quality of the research, and what do the results really mean? Are results being misrepresented or taken out of context? It’s possible to devise a study to prove or disprove virtually anything. Similarly, I’ve heard business school students refer to courses in “statistical interpretation” as “lying with numbers 101.” If certain facts, research, numbers, or statistics are the linchpin of your story – or if they’re likely to be considered controversial or libelous – make sure you’re confident that the facts really say what you think they say.
4. Check for more recent data or findings. Many great travesties of journalism occur when reporters keep blindly citing studies or claims which have since been disproven, recanted, or called into significant doubt. Examples include claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, studies of career women’s marriage prospects, and more. Always look for the most recent information and analysis. Consider quality here, too – just because someone criticizes a study or analysis doesn’t make it wrong. Use your judgment. Updated information or context can be a great hook for a followup story.
5. Set your own criteria Just because someone can’t back up his views with verifiable statistics does not necessarily invalidate his perspective or his point. Just be sure, if you end up citing such information, that you clarify whether it’s verifiable. Trust readers to draw their own conclusions.
6. Consider your own credibility. The ultimate point of fact checking isn’t really accuracy – it’s credibility. People will only read you, and keep reading you, if they find your work credible. Fact-checking techniques are the surest way to boost your credibility in the long run, and safeguard your career. Think of it as journalistic calisthenics. However, realize that often people (sources, editors, readers, advertisers) won’t appreciate your efforts, especially if your fact checking undermines their preferred version of the story.
7. Examine assumptions, too. “Facts” only have meaning in context, and context is supported by assumptions. Assumptions are the shortcuts we make in our reasoning as we continually strive to make meaning of our world. For instance, a booming stock market and rising GDP often are cited as indicators of a healthy economy. But healthy for whom, and how? What do those benchmarks really measure, and what do they ignore or distort? You don’t have to adopt assumptions simply because they’re popular. However, if you’re re-interpreting “facts” through the lens of an usual set of assumptions, be prepared to explain what you’re doing, and why. Sometimes this can lead to a much bigger story – like how Enron was able to get away with extreme accounting fraud for so long.
8. Accept that you are not perfect. At some point, you will mess up. You will cite a “fact” that will be disproven, and someone will call you on that – probably publicly. It will be embarrassing, and it will hurt. Re-check your information, and check the criticism carefully. If you were wrong, say so. If this correction changes the meaning of your story, explain how. And remember: This too shall pass.

(Thanks to Doug Fasching of I Am Not Dustin for calling Michael Geoghagen’s blog entry to my attention.)