Journalism tips on putting the truth jigsaw together:

Handling rumour, speculation and damnable lies!

Gaston de ROSAYRO

Going by our last couple of discussions you should now have some reasonably clear guidelines on how to present facts and opinions in the news. However, ordinary people do not operate by journalism's rules of checking accuracy and finding proof. In day-to-day conversation most people are not so careful about the accuracy of facts.

Take the example of a man who runs into your newsroom shouting: "The Towers Building has fallen down! Hundreds of people have been hurt!" He most certainly has not stopped to survey the extent of the damage or count the number of people injured. It may turn out that one wall has collapsed into the street and has injured six people. That is news. What the man was giving us was speculation. When other people repeat such speculation without checking its accuracy we have the spread of a rumour.

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context.

Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can, and must pursue it in a practical sense. This 'journalistic truth' is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now but subject to further investigation.

Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built. These include context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need, not less, for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.

It is part of the journalist's job then to separate fact from speculation and rumour. The only time you should mention a rumour is when you are writing a story about its effect and you need to identify the source of the effect.

For example, if there is a widespread rumour that there will be a shortage of sugar, your first step should be to find out whether or not it is true by contacting the major importers, the government department or ministry concerned and a sample of shop owners.

A journalist at a crime scene

A person describing a scene to the media

Then you can write a story based on facts. Sometimes rumours are so strong that they make people behave in a certain way, even when the rumour is not true. So, if people are panic-buying sugar because of the rumour, you can mention that fact and the rumour, but be sure also to mention whether or not the rumour is true.

Even the best journalists can be tricked by lies into presenting misleading news. Sometimes the lies are not intentional. Informants may think they are telling the truth but are really fooling themselves. They may report seeing what they wanted to see. For example, they may report seeing a policeman arresting a youth when he was, in fact, giving the youth directions.

You must check the facts, both for your own sake and for the sake of your informants, who would not wish to appear foolish. Sometimes, however, the informant is deliberately trying to trick you for his or her own reasons. Perhaps it is to cover up a mistake, perhaps to avoid appearing ignorant, occasionally to give false information for more sinister reasons, such as creating ill-feeling between groups or tricking people into giving money. How can you uncover such cases of lying?

Look at the person's reputation. If the person telling you something has a reputation for dishonesty, everything they tell you should be treated with suspicion. You should be extra careful if they have fooled you or a colleague before. If you have any doubts about the honesty of a potential interviewee, do a bit of background checking before the interview. Anything suspicious should make you more critical of what they say. You can then ask more probing questions.

Most people find it more difficult to tell a lie convincingly than to tell the truth. When we tell the truth, we can rely on our memory and fit all the facts together. With a lie, we have to use our imagination. The more complicated the lie, the more difficult it is to think up ways of linking all the pieces together. Holes will start to appear in the story and it will begin to show gaps in the logic.

Once you have the slightest suspicion that this is happening, probe deeper. Ask more searching questions, especially those which will allow you to cross-check with something else the person has said. For example, if someone is describing something they allegedly saw ask them to describe the surroundings. They should be able to do it if they were there. If you are still suspicious, you can then visit the scene yourself to check out the truth of what was said. You can ask yourself: "Was there mud on the ground at that point? Could he have seen round the building as he claimed?" Good journalism can be very much like detective work.

It is always good journalism to cross-check what people say with at least one independent source, even if cross-checking means approaching their opponents for confirmation of details. You should do this anyway in most cases, to achieve balance in your story. We will talk more about this in another discussion.

If someone comes with a story that they have been robbed of the wages they received that morning, you could check with their employer how much they got paid and when. Check with the police whether the crime has been reported. Check with anyone who may have witnessed the event - not only the people the victim says were witnesses.

You should also cross-check the credentials of people who come to you saying they represent a certain group or organisation. Check the telephone directory, business guides or Who's Who? Get in touch with a reliable source within that group. You do not have to say that you disbelieve them. There are much more subtle ways, such as ringing up to check the spelling of their name then asking a few discreet questions.

Any journal or broadcaster should steer clear of publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material. All sides of the core issue or subject should be reported. Unjustified rumours and surmises should not be set forth as facts.

On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit his/her or its version comments or reaction and publish the same with due amendments in the report where necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect should be appended to the report.

In summary: Remember people use fact and opinions to make decisions. You must help by showing clearly which is which. You must attribute all opinions and any facts for which there is no commonly accepted proof.

Commentary columns should be clearly distinguished from news. Never repeat unchecked rumour or speculation. If you suspect someone is lying to you, check what they say with an independent source.

[email protected]