Americans deserve journalists who provide responsible, objective reporting.
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.'
My inclination, as an old-school, classically trained journalist, is not to go with a story unless I have it hard. It's not good enough to say something based on rumors that were flying around.
Accuracy builds credibility.
Well-reported news is a public good; bad news is bad for everyone.
How do you know the news is reliable if you didn’t gather it yourself?
When rumours increase, and when there is an abundance of noise and clamour, believe the second report.
A reporter is no better than his source of information.
Those who declared librarians obsolete when the Internet rage first appeared are now red-faced. We need them more than ever. The Internet is full of 'stuff' but its value and readability is often questionable. 'Stuff' doesn't give you a competitive edge, high-quality related information does.
In the news feed on your phone, all stories look the same - whether they come from a credible source or not.
I know what I don't know. I would seek out, as I have, the best advice that exists. I won't get my information from the shows.
One of the things that became clear, and which was actually rather disturbing, was the fact that there was a view which was being expressed by people whose scientific credentials you can't question.
If we applied more science reporting standards to political reporting, most of these politicians wouldn’t be able to make all these outrageous statements. We ask where is your data? How can you prove that?
Readable text and authority so that readers know how to spend - no matter how much information there is, I have the same number of minutes in my day, and I need to look to sources that I trust.
Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia!
...when a reporter is quoting Sid Blumenthal on president Bush, you know he's scraping the barrel.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
I don't believe Wikipedia about anything. I don't go there for anything but keywords.
Who cares what entertainers on the air think about international affairs? Who would want to hear me about Vietnam? They can hear all they want from people with reason to be respected as knowledgeable.
We need to boycott the mainstream media, and we need to go online, and we need to find credible news sources.
Everything that you see in 'Unhinged' that's quoted can be verified as documented and corroborated.
Okay, I'm not in the news business, and I'm not going to tell anyone how to do their job. However, it'd be good to have news reporting that I could trust again, and there's evidence that fact-checking is an idea whose time has come.
I wish there was a news channel that really told you what was going on in the world, not just sensationalized news.
I tell my students, even if you are an opinion journalist, your opinion should be based on facts.
I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence.
