> Good reporting cross-checks multiple sources, often seeking out conflicting ones, and trying to form a coherent story out of that. To me such reporting is no

> Good reporting cross-checks multiple sources, often seeking out conflicting ones, and trying to form a coherent story out of that. To me such reporting is not good enough. Have you read Asimov's Foundation? There's a character named Lord Dorwin who's interested in finding he truth about a certain subject, and whose method is to analyze and reconcile the opinions of "old masters" who have "covered the ground" before. Asimov explains quite scathingly why that doesn't work. Grandparent comment is right: a reporter needs to be hands-on with the topic. If you write about overspending, and you only asked experts but never added two numbers in Excel yourself, what makes you qualified to weigh the opinions of experts?