Page updated:
Wednesday, 12 September 2007

SPECIAL REPORT...

Getting your message across

FACTORS THAT LIMIT accuracy and quality,,,

Limitations on accuracy

We present information to our readers that is as accurate as we can make it, however journalists and newsletter and web content producers know that information provided to them might not be complete or accurate. There are reason for this.

Truth is a changable quality

We should always strive to present information that is accurate; that, as far as we know, is true. But remember that the perception of 'truth' can change over time as new information becomes available - truth and accuracy are related to what we know at the time.

You can report only what you believe to be true, based on the information available and your interpretation of it. This is especially so when you report breaking news or an unfolding issue. Information early in the development of such events is unlikely to be complete and may simply be a best guess by the authorities. More accurate information will become available as the event develops. It is important to publish revised facts and figures to keep the readership or viewers properly informed.

The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004 provides an illustration of how media organisations continually update their reporting as an event unfolds. Numbers of casualties cited were rough estimates at first but as the scale of the disaster became clearer the figure - it was always an estimate - was revised upwards. Similarly, reporting of the impact on particular coastlines and towns became more detailed as media organisations managed to get their reporting teams into the affected areas. Over time, a more complete picture of the disaster was brought before the public and political decision makers.

In situations in which international media are involved it should be recognised that the media - as a collective entity made up of individual outlets and reporting teams - may together know more about the situation than national governments or disaster relief organisations.

When gathering information for an article or report remember that information may not be reliable. Where possible:

• seek out the most credible sources of information available and attribute the information to them; this gives credibility to what is being reported (assuming the source is regarded as credible - ascertaining this is the responsibility of the journalist; finding credible sources may not be possible in some situations); an exception is in the gathering of eyewitness accounts which audiences (hopefully) know are subjective accounts
• make clear what is factual information and what is conjecture or opinion so that your audience can make decisions and develop an understanding about what is real and what is only possible; when reporting what may be conjecture, prefix the information with a qualifying statement such as "opinion here suggests... ", or "people around here are saying... "; when reporting unsubstantiated information prefix with "unconfirmed reports indicate ..... " or similar.

For example, an early report of an accident might include a statement such as: 'Police estimate that as many as 25 people may have been injured'. Here the information is attributed to an authoritative source, the police, and the figure they provide is clearly identified as an estimate. The reading is that it could be revised later.

The 'children overboard' affair of 2001 is an example how new information can create a renewed appreciation of an event and change the way people perceive it. It demonstrates the importance of the media pursuing and investigating an important event even when that might not be appreciated by powers-that-be.

Substantiating facts

Journalists should substantiate facts to assess their credibility and truthfullness before publication. Non-professional writers of newsletters, magazines and online content should do likewise within the means available to them.

It might not always possible to verify the absolute truthfullness of some fact, however the attempt should be made to talk to the source of the information and judge whether both the source and their information are credible. Journalists with regular contact with sources will know whether or not they are credible and reliable.

Substantiation may be approached by questioning a number of informants and comparing what they say about an event or by visiting the scene of an event still in progress or recently ended, where there remains evidence of its occurrence. This latter point enacts the role of the reporter as 'witness'.

The mass of the general public cannot visit the site of an unfolding drama, nor do the authorities want them to in case they endanger themselves or others, however journalists and photographers do. They report what they see and learn as an eyewtness account and through on-the-spot interviews with officials and witnesses, or by reporting a press conference called by the authorities. This substantiates the occurrence of the incident, however information disclosed by witnesses or the authorities may need further clarification.

Sometimes, especially with breaking news or an unfolding story, the media will report unsubstantiated information but will generally make the status of the information known to their audience. Individuals and oranisations releasing information to the media should provide the evidence that substantiates the content.

Common knowledge need not be substantiated as is is widely known and evidence to verify it easy to find. For example, there is no need to substantiate the fact that (insert the current name) is the Prime Minister. But if there is a challenge to the position, from the Treasurer, say, then that would be substantiated by asking the Treasurer or his colleagues to confirm or deny it.

PRs, press releases and incomplete information

Press releases and information supplied by public relations (PR) people is often incomplete; their task, after all, is to present their clients in the best light possible. PR people are likely to slant information by emphasising what they believe are the positive points - 'putting a positive spin' in PR jargon. This can lead to the glossing-over or omitting of information they do not want publicised.

This should not be good enough for journalists and, in all but the simplest instances, reprinting material from a press release without following it up and getting other points of view is sloppy journalism indeed. A press release is a useful way to capture the attention of the media, but it is only the journalist's starting point from which other questions are formulated to produce a more rounded and inclusive report.

Whether you are a journalist or a newsletter producer for a non-profit or community group, when presented with a press release, ask:

• what message is being pushed?
• why is the message being pushed at this time?
• what wider or associated things may it be linked to?
• what has been left unsaid?
• how credible is the organisation issuing the press release and the person quoted in it? ie. do they represent a genuine body of opinion and genuine interest (not a fake organisation set up by a vested interest, as a developer once set up a false community group in Sydney to further their interests, until it was exposed by the media), do they represent a valid viewpoint? are they more than two people with a website?
• who are the other stakeholders in the issue and should their opinion be sought?
• how are others participating in the debate or issue presented in the press release, if at all?
• how do I check up on figures quoted, such as financial information and dates? is the organisation mentioned as the source of the figures a credible source?

Witnesses

People sometimes witness the same event but report different versions of what happened. That might be because of:

• viewpoint - depending on where people are situated when an event occurs, some of the action might be out of sight or obscured although it might be clearly visible to other witnesses; thus, witnesses might report different, even conflicting versions of the event; that is why it can be useful to speak to a number of witnesses
• psychological filtering - events and information are given meaning by being passed through an individual's 'psychological filter' made up of their beliefs, values and attitudes; this can lead to a selective interpretation of what is seen, heard or read - the person is not necessarily lying but is reporting a personal interpretation; ask for a minute-by-minute description of what they actually witnessed that is as free from interpretation as possible.

False information

Telling untruths - lying - is practiced even by people in positions of power who should know better. People lie to cover up mistakes or to present information slanted in a way that supports their opinion or version of events. Someone might lie initially because they are confused about the implications of something but later clarify their stance.

Unknowingly reporting a lie is sometimes unavoidable; the journalist, faced with deadlines, has only limited time to check out information. This is another reason why it is wise to consult others that might have information. Where erroneous information has been published it should be corrected as soon as reliable information is available.

Successful lying calls for a high degree of thoroughness and cunning to make the facts appear consistent. The liar must know that journalists, political or personal enemies will go out of their way to catch them out and expose them. To be successful, a liar must be clever. Many are not.

Members of the general public may lie on occasions, however when it comes to people in positions of power or influence whose integrity the public, business or social institutions rely on, lying is more serious as it potentially affects more people as well as the credibility of the position they represent. When politicians and other socially powerful figures betray the public trust by lying, the public glee at their humiliation can be as unmerciful as it is understandable. The trial by media that follows is seen by many as the delivery of justice.

Providing selective information

This is a close cousin of lying and occurs when relevant information is deliberately left out.

The task for the writer is to research the subject and come back with questions about the information the presenter may be uncomfortable with - this makes possible a fairer and less-biased report to the audience or readership.

For advocacy journalists - those that openly push a particular interpretaion or line - there is great temptation to select only the information that supports their agenda. Advocacy journalism, despite all the posturing about objectivity in reporting - is a valid form of journalism and the more ethical journalist-advocate will present opposing information and attempt to argue why it is wrong. John Pilger, an Australian journalist working in the UK, is an advocacy journalist with a politically Left agenda who specialises in demolishing the claims of opponents.

Partially-true or incomplete information can also be supplied honestly, such as when hearsay is reported to a journalist and the journalist is not aware that is what it is. We cannot know everything about an event or person and even the most informed of journalists is usually only partially informed. The trouble comes when the informant claims to know more than they do, when they cannot answer a question with the simple and honest statement: "I don't know the answer to that".

Tricky business

Verifying the truth value of information is limited by the availability of sources and expert opinion, the lack of background information and the deadline limitations journalists work under. Ascertaining what is true can be a tricky business.