Thinking like a fact checker

Mistakes happen in any profession, but when one is made in journalism, thousands — sometimes millions — of people see it. At best, this is embarrassing. At worst, there are lawyers involved.

 

Mistakes happen in any profession, but when one is made in journalism, thousands — sometimes millions — of people see it. At best, this is embarrassing. At worst, there are lawyers involved.

Getting it right is important, but factors sometimes seem to conspire against writers. There may be short deadlines, editors that misinterpret what's been written, or sources that can't translate their area of expertise into understandable language. And then there's that desire to make the words simply sound good, which can compete with the desire for accuracy.

Even if a writer knows her work will be fact checked, this is not an excuse to be any less careful. And there are lessons that a journalist can take from the fact-checking process and apply when she doesn't have a fact checker backing her up.

Fact checking is a time consuming and expensive process, but many publications still believe it is a necessary investment. "Fact checking ensures that what [we] publish is accurate, and [that] is the most important service a journalist or a news outlet provides," says Tom O'Neill, an editor at the Columbia Journalism Review. "Without it, there is no credibility."

To a writer, though, this process can be annoying, requiring more work for an already overextended reporter. And there is at least a little more work involved. Generally, a publication that fact checks its articles requires an annotation of some sort in which the writer will have to provide a source for every piece of information, even the minor ones, as well as contact information for everyone interviewed, copies of articles and other documents cited, names of books (complete with edition used and the numbers for pages with relevant information), and possibly even notes from or audio files of interviews.

In return, a fact checker will investigate each and every detail, becoming an expert in that topic in as little as a couple of days. She'll re-interview sources, read papers and books, and even visit sites mentioned in an article. "There's quite a lot of reporting involved," says Barbara Wyckoff, a research editor at National Geographic who has been fact checking for nearly three decades.

All of this relies on proper sourcing. "Finding and evaluating sources is probably the most important work that fact checkers and writers can do," Sarah Harrison Smith writes in The Fact Checker's Bible, "because the quality of the source material used in writing and checking a piece determines the accuracy and breadth of the published work."

And when a writer is lazy in her sourcing, relying on websites such as Wikipedia, for example, or personal knowledge of the subject, there are consequences. Inexperienced or overworked fact checkers may miss mistakes and allow errors to creep in. Nuance may be lost, or new research overlooked. Too many problems and editors begin to notice. "Our magazine is renowned for its factual accuracy," says Wyckoff. "If a writer is consistently bad, they won't be hired again."

But fact checking can be an opportunity for the writer, fact checker, and editor to make the article better, says Jessica Gorman, a deputy editor at CR Magazine. She recommends that writers think like fact checkers. "Learning about the fact checking process made me a much better and careful reporter and editor," Gorman says. "Things that I might have [overlooked] before, I'm now more careful about."

Wikipedia, for instance, may be a good place to start the research process, but facts and numbers should come from original, primary sources whenever possible. Newspaper articles can have errors, as can books. Consulting multiple sources may be necessary. "Not all printed sources are created equal and not all websites are created equal," Gorman cautions.

A good reporter will be as careful with her sources when she is writing for a local newspaper as when she is writing for a national magazine. "I try to treat fact checking as a luxury, as a sort of second safety check for me," says freelance writer Michelle Nijhuis, whose work has appeared in publications ranging from High Country News to Smithsonian. "After all, my name's on the article."

Details matter — readers notice even the little things, like the difference between a sherd and a shard — and Nijhuis says she'll work on nailing down each of them when she nears the end of the writing process. "I footnote everything within an inch of its life," she says. And when she is unsure of something from a human source, Nijhuis will go back for another conversation. "Sources are always happy to spend extra time with you to make sure you get things right," she says.

With such information on hand, a writer won't need to spend hours searching for where she found a certain piece of information when having to put together an annotation or when an editor asks for more details.

All this work pays off in the end. Readers get accurate information. Publications keep their readers' trust. And writers gain the respect of both readers and editors.

"It seems like any legitimate writer shouldn't have to be told to get their facts straight," says Wyckoff.

But a reminder won't hurt.

Sarah Zielinski is an assistant editor, fact checker, and blogger at Smithsonian magazine.

(NASW members can read the rest of the Spring 2010 ScienceWriters by logging into the members area.)

May 9, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT
BWF Climate Change and Human Health Seed Grants

ADVERTISEMENT
EurekAlert! Travel Awards

ADVERTISEMENT
Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications