Verifying sources Verification of the reliability of sources

What is verification of sources? There's a flood of information available in print, on TV and radio, online and on smartphones and tablets. How do you know what you can believe — what is credible? How do you know whether you can trust the source of the information? What if you want to share news and information with others? How do you publish something that has credibility and context? This presentation will give you the tools to evaluate the credibility of what you read, see and hear. You'll also learn what you need to ask before you publish — whether it's a news story, a blog item or a tweet. By understanding how to evaluate news and information, you'll be a better news consumer, news producer and a better citizen in a democracy.

“You’re only as good as your sources”: The value of reliable sources Because journalists are rarely at the scene of a newsworthy event, they must rely on sources to recount what happened. They also often lack the expertise to interpret certain events and issues, and so they turn to experts to provide informed opinions. Sources therefore are vital to a journalist’s work. A frequent saying in journalism is that you are only as good as your sources. Some sources of information are more worthy of belief than others. The less trustworthy the source, the greater the need to use other sources to verify the allegations. This applies as much to documentary sources as to people…

So what makes a source reliable? The opinion of source credibility has been examined by theorists and researchers across various disciplines, including communication studies, psychology and marketing. Aristotle, when writing about the art of persuasion, listed good sense, good moral character, and goodwill as qualities which “induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it”. Although scholars do not fully agree on the most important dimensions of source credibility, many have proposed attributes that can help define the concept. Hovland, Janis, and Kelley identified expertness and trustworthiness as factors of communicator credibility; Mc. Croskey pointed to authoritativeness and character; Whitehead added competency and objectivity. Working journalists may recognize some of these characteristics as things they instinctively look for when evaluating their own news sources. In practice, journalists have invented their own informal conventions when seeking out the most reliable source for a story.

Primary sources One typical piece of advice given to journalists is to rely on primary sources, rather than secondary sources, when investigating a story. In terms of documentary sources, this means seeking out the original data or document, such as court transcripts, minutes of meetings, letters and other official records. For human sources, a primary source might include interviews with direct witnesses.

Authoritativeness The level of authority a person or institution has is closely related to the credibility they possess. Journalists, by convention, choose authoritative sources. People in positions of power are regarded as credible because it is assumed that they are “in the know. ”

Expert knowledge Another question journalists must ask themselves when assessing reliability is: Is this source likely to know or be informed about the topic at hand? Sources should have a proven knowledge about the subject matter being discussed. For example, an economist’s opinion on the causes behind a recession would be more credible than that of a random shopper at a store.

The consequences of unreliable sources An unreliable source may be someone who doesn’t have the authority or the knowledge to speak on a particular topic. In some cases, sources may be unreliable because their personal opinions influence their version of a story, or they may simply make mistakes. In other cases, a source may be unreliable because he or she is lying or trying to mislead reporters. Journalists search for that perfect source, someone to hang the story on, by sending out mass emails, reaching out to friends, families and contacts. This leaves journalists open to manipulation. Some people try to be the perfect source to gain benefits, such as fame. Sometimes they think they are just giving the reporter what he seems to want. Either way, the source is not credible and reporters must remain skeptical and be careful not to be blinded by their search for the perfect source.

Checking for reliability Unfortunately, checking for source reliability doesn’t seem to be a common practice among reporters. A German study found that journalists only spend about 1 minute and 45 seconds per day checking sources in terms of probability or correctness. How much source checking is done should depend on the story. Journalists don’t usually check up on people they talk to for man-on-the-street stories. But for important stories, such as in-depth reports or stories of great importance, sources should be thorough checked.

Conflicts of interest and hidden motives Journalists are always advised to avoid any conflicts of interest, real or perceived, that they may hold which could influence their reporting of a story. Sources, too, may have their own conflicts of interest and journalists should try to be aware of them. For example, in 2007, the Los Angeles Times had to publish a correction after it discovered that a source they had interviewed about her positive experience as a patient at Lindora Health Clinic was also in fact an employee of Lindora Inc. According to the publication, Carrie Clemens did not acknowledge this fact when asked about her place of employment. Conflicts of interest such as these damage a source’s credibility.

The issue of anonymous sources The use of anonymous sources can be problematic when trying to establish reliability. Granting individuals the protection of anonymity means that they can say whatever they want without being held accountable for it. When a source asks for anonymity, a journalist should consider what their motives may be.

Applying scientific methods to journalism There has been designed a checklist for assessing sources in an attempt to provide a methodological tool specifically for medical journalists. The checklist contains the following questions: • Have the findings been published in a peer-reviewed journal? • Has the institution a high reputation? • Has the author(s) a good track record in the field? • Are there any conflicts of interest? • Who funded the study?

With some modification, this framework could be adapted for use by all journalists, not just those reporting on science. When verifying a source a journalist can ask similar questions: • Does the person have a high reputation? Do people who know him— neighbours or colleagues—consider him to be trustworthy? • Does the person or institution have a good track record in their field? Is she authoritative? • Is the source knowledgeable on the subject? Is she considered an expert? • Are there any conflicts of interest? Who does the source work for? Does the source have an underlying motive or agenda and does it seem to influence his opinion?