Parvathy Quotes

We need ethical journalism. There is also capacity limitations in journalism.

Online journalism has always had a sourcing problem. From using unverified 'anonymous tips' to repeating whatever rumor or speculation people are chattering about, the general ethic is, 'We'll publish just about anything.'

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

I was a bad journalist.

The first duty of a newspaper is to be accurate. If it be accurate, it follows that it is fair.

I don't want to paint everybody with the same broad brush. But I do think that the majority of folks now in the briefing room, that are going into journalism - they're not there for the facts and the pursuit of the truth.

If someone appears on television and makes a comment, and we quote that comment, we are being accurate. But are we actually being sensible if we don't know if that comment is based on any facts whatsoever? It is something that journalists have to be much more aware of.

I know that from the days of Watergate... the notion of two sources on a story has become the popular dogma about how you confirm something. And there is a lot of truth to that, but there are all kinds of ways to check to the extent that you can, a story that you get.

Where are reliable journalism and reliable investigative voices going to come from? I love the days of old - the Walter Cronkites, the Dan Rathers.

When I was collecting material for a political gossip column, and someone said something interesting, I would wait for them to add, 'and I don't want to read that in your magazine!' In which case I wouldn't use it. But if they didn't remember to say it, I'd nip off to the loo, write the story up, come back and change the subject.

There are still journalists who risk their lives in situations of conflict, versus those who sit behind a desk at 'News of the World' to report on whether someone is going out with somebody or not.

I am not responsible for all the journalists in the past that have told lies.

As I understand it, Lacey has dismissed all of the fact checkers.

I do think that there are gray lines of morality in a newsroom, when it comes to some stories. The best-intentioned journalist still has a difficult mission, to try to boil down people.

This much we know: Journalism is not a precise science. It's, on its best day, is a crude art. We make mistakes; I make mistakes. With more than 50 years as a journalist, I have at least had the opportunity to blow more stories, make more mistakes than maybe anybody in television.

We in the media should be breaking the news and not making the news.

I always thought it would be a terrible mistake, and I would hope that none of my news journalist colleagues would ever consider it.

A journalists's job is not to be balanced. It is to be accurate.

Americans deserve journalists who provide responsible, objective reporting.

There are all sorts of despicable people who journalists have done interviews with, and it's been useful. Isn't more information better than less information?

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

One of the great things about journalism, at its best I mean, is its forensic, investigative truth seeking instincts.

It's the broadcaster's dilemma. Are we true journalists? I don't know if I am or not.

There is kind of this spirit in journalism to tell both sides of the story and to just let the listeners choose what they want to choose, and I understand that, and there's a place for it, but on some issues, we really do need to take a stand.

Well, I think the public has been well-served by the increase in fact-checking. And I find it shocking that not all news outlets have invested in hiring fact-checkers because the line is so pervasive.