Sarah Weinman Quotes

Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

I'm not rational enough to be a good journalist.

I believe there's too little patience and context to many of the investigations I read or see on television.

I know we journalists have a reputation for being cynics. We do. It's our job to question - everything.

We're journalists, so our default position is we're not writing editorial. We're trying to bring information to readers, viewers, so that they can make up their own conclusions.

Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.

The media's job is to question a premise.

I never did any training in journalism or in finance, so I really was in the deep end. I got very good at going to press conferences and nodding. I'd figure it out when I got back to the office. Charts and numbers. I've never been great with facts, ever, my whole life. For a journalist, that's not a very good trait.

I'm a bit of a freak for evidence-based analysis. I strongly believe in data.

I had been writing for about twelve years. I knew pretty well how you could find things out, but I had never been trained in an academic way how to go about the research.

A scientist... must accept the results of experiment, and nothing but the results of experiment.

One of the most important disciplines in journalism is to challenge your working premises.

I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising.

In journalism it is simpler to sound off than it is to find out. It is more elegant to pontificate than it is to sweat.

Scepticism is a necessary and vital part of the journalist's toolkit. But when scepticism becomes cynicism it can close off thought and block the search for truth.

Whenever you're reporting, there's always something you can't say or write, but the questions, you always want to get as close to that line as possible. You want to ask the tough questions.

Serious journalism need not be solemn.

Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, that's what keeps them digging rather than simply accepting the official line, whether it comes from government or corporate bureaucrats.

The reason I spend so much of my time doing science is that the whole point of science is to help people resolve conflicting claims by saying: 'Show me the data.'

I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

True science teaches, above all, to doubt

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

Journalists like to give themselves credit for being on the hunt for 'the truth.' But if we embrace this undoubtedly noble but somewhat haughty interpretation of a calling, we inevitably become susceptible to slam dunk answers.

I have long argued that no one should be allowed to write opinion without spending years as a reporter - nothing like interviewing all four eyewitnesses to an automobile accident and then trying to write an accurate account of what happened.

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