How to tell real news from fake (More from Blur by Kovach and Rosenstiel)

I'm still reading Blur by Kovach and Rosenstiel. It's great information, but definitely leaves me wondering how I would ever have time to implement all the suggestions they provide for vetting news stories.

For example, one should ask oneself, apparently, where the information comes from. Was the journalist herself a witness or credentialed expert? Were first-hand witnesses the sources for an event? If so, how recently did they see it? How many of them are there? What were their perspectives, both literally and figuratively? If experts are quoted for analysis or commentary, what are their agendas? And are they offering facts, or opinions? What about "anonymous sources? And when opinions and analysis are offered, do the same catchphrases ("death-panels;" "welfare queens;" "boots on the ground") keep cropping up? If so, you may not be hearing sources so much as parrots of official talking points. The ideal source is risking something and gaining nothing by providing information.

These questions only have meaning if you are reading what the authors call "the journalism of verification," whose writers are committed to producing only what they can prove to be true, not what they believe to be true. So all forms of evidence can be tested: what is offered? How was it vetted? Has opposing evidence also been presented? What conclusions have been drawn-- are they supported? Could other conclusions be drawn from the same evidence? Are you getting breaking news that may be incomplete, or something that should have been properly analyzed? This reminds me of the book I read about Confidential magazine, and how for years they avoided lawsuits by meticulous fact-checks of their gossip pieces!

Every communication has three levels: the denotation (what it says), the connotation (what it means), and the annotation (how it feels; the tone). So, does a news story follow the scientific method? Is it true in denotation, that is, are all the facts accurate? In connotation, that is, are the facts assembled to make a true story? Is the tone fair? I think of weather reports, which often exaggerate certain evidence and take on a hysterical tone, because otherwise, why would we tune in?

Perhaps one could also think of the scientific method, which involves forming a hypothesis and then testing it with evidence. We do this all the time in real life: did I leave my keys in the church library? Well, let me go look, knowing it's possible that I did not. Any piece of journalism that purports to be investigative should certainly address the possibility that the hypothesis was wrong.

A lot of what passes for informational programming is just talking heads with talking points and a moderator who discourages moderation. In such a situation, the interviewer or emcee often lets false statements go by, because her job is really just to facilitate her guests' expression of their own ideas. In such a case, we may be in the realm of the "journalism of affirmation," which seeks only to comfort with well-worn ideas and theories. Such "journalism" cherry-picks facts, ascribes unusually evil motives to the other 48% of Americans, and indulges in ad-hominem attacks and ultimately the creation of alternate realities. We like this kind of "news," which is both entertaining and affirming, but let's not kid ourselves that we have learned anything from it!