Andrew Rosenthal Quotes

But there's a big difference between, say, reporting on a story and simply making up a story.

My goal was never to withhold information; my goal was to make sure everything was accurate, and frequently it wasn't.

In most daily journalism, you only fact-check something if it seems a little fishy.

Just because you read a report in the 'New York Times,' the 'Economist,' or, yes, 'The New Yorker' doesn't make it true. But we do know that a few people have evaluated that story with what strikes me as fairly objective standards of reason.

You don't want to come out with anything that's wrong, of course, in a scientific, you know, a major scientific announcement, and so you're being so careful trying to check, well maybe it's this, maybe it's that, you're looking at every possible thing.

We are a fact-gathering organization only. We don't clear anybody. We don't condemn anybody.

It's impossible for an editor to know every source for every story.

If information is true, if it can be verified, and if it's really important, the newspaper needs to be willing to take the risk associated with using unidentified sources.

You can’t report on something that you don’t know about.

Certainly in my own body of reporting, I was very acutely aware of the risk of any mischaracterized journalism and the need for anything I put out to be absolutely bulletproof.

Journalists who swallow the subject's account whole and publish it are not journalists but publicists.

As a journalist - or as a writer - my obligation is to come as close to the truth as I possibly can. And that's not as close to someone else's truth, but the truth as I see it.

My humble request to journalists - It only takes one phone call or an email to check facts.

When you are a journalist, you have a big responsibility towards your audience and it is important to respect that responsibility.

If you are a journalist, check and double-check your sources. Don't just swallow what politicians tell you.

It's irresponsible to put uncorroborated information on the Internet.

I just love when the Internet is wrong. It's the only thing that will save journalism.

My work is very carefully researched. Sometimes I have to ditch an idea because I can't prove it.

Tricks you need to transform something which appears fantastic, unbelievable into something plausible, credible, those I learned from journalism. The key is to tell it straight. It is done by reporters and by country folk.

Get in the habit of vetting your research as you go - particularly research conducted online. Verify facts from multiple reputable sources before you record them.

I think it's this congenital problem with journalism that we oversell the difference we make. We make small differences.

Once we thought, journalists and readers alike, that if we put together enough 'facts' and gave them a fast stir, we would come up with something that, at least by the standards of short-order cooks, could be called the truth.

I think all good reporting is the same thing - the best attainable version of the truth.

If any sort of error is inexcusable, it's an incorrect phone number. One of the cardinal rules of copy editing is that every phone number published must be checked.

I'm convinced you can combine this with reporting integrity and accuracy.