4 ms·
That's handled by going to multiple people. If you are seeing fighting by all or some people, or if you have conflicting information, that's a story in itself.
by s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
That's handled by going to multiple people. If you are seeing fighting by all or some people, or if you have conflicting information, that's a story in itself.
The important part is going to those people in the first place, whether they cooperate or not. You generally get a good idea of what's going on when you present later collected facts to people and get their reaction.
Treat it like a police investigation, you don't just interview a witness once, you interview them, go interview people from their statement, then come back and interview them again to see if everything matches up with what everyone said.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> Treat it like a police investigation, you don't just interview a witness once, you interview them, go interview people from their statement, then come back and interview them again to see if everything matches up with what everyone said. Lying to the police can lead to charges like obstruction of justice, filing a false police report, lying to the FBI, etc. Journalists don't have this weapon in their quiver. Unless you're going to propose giving journalists subpoena power, your "come back and interview them again" approach simply isn't going to work.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoThe article is the charge. Like I said, if they don't comment then note that in the article, and ask others. If noone comments then note that in the article.
- ceejayoz 8y ago"Treat it like a police investigation" without giving journalists police powers (which they rely heavily upon to complete an investigation) results in a pretty pointless process.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoSince when is verifying facts a pointless process?
- ceejayoz 8y agoThere are many other ways to verify facts versus an interview with a reluctant/belligerent subject of a piece.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoSuch as?