Crash course in journalism, lesson 8: Research part 2
Note: this post is a part of a crash course in journalism. If this is the first post from the series you encountered, it is highly recommended to start the course from the beginning. See index of previous lessons at the end of the post.
This is the second lesson out of 3 about research, and in fact, it is all about facts.
The discussion of what is a fact, and how do we know that something that is stated as a fact is truly so, has become very loaded in our time. Probably because we are so used to be lied to. But in this lesson, I’d like to keep away from the philosophical debate and take a more practical approach.
If your story is like a building, then facts are like its windows. They shed light into the story but they are also its most vulnerable part. If you are going to write something meaningful, sooner or later you are going to face criticism. What that means for the most part, is not that you will get negative or arguing replies and talkbacks, but simply that readers may not read you through. So you can look at facts as the weakest parts of the defense for your story.
No story can be above any doubt. You have to remember that your stories have a built-in weakness - that they are stories. If what you write was just a statement of facts, things would be much simpler, likewise if you were writing fiction. But journalistic writing is stuck in a vulnerable point in the middle.
Everyone can make mistakes every once in awhile, but if you will be caught making up facts or even just mentioning wrong ones too often, the credibility of your stories will be greatly damaged.
The only way to manage and minimize this risk is to do your research correctly, What you should try to do, is to find the minimal set of facts that will support your story and make sure that you got these facts right.
Here is a simple technique that can help you do that - while you are researching, stop every once in awhile and write a list of the assumptions you make. Then go over the list and try to remove as many of them as possible. For those that are left, write down a plan of how you can verify that they are true. The facts you need, are those that are needed for this plan. By repeating this process, you will get your research done efficiently and accurately.
And I would like to finish this lesson with a link to this short video, by Dr. Michael Shermer from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, which I think, speaks for itself. Thanks to @cristi for pointing me in this direction.
Index of previous lessons:
Lesson number one: Buy a notebook
Lesson 5: Using your notebook in the field
Lesson 6 : "The something else"
Is this a journalist? Who are all these people who are supporting this hack, 202 votes, and not one comment?
This is high time you realize who you are supporting with your votes and exactly what kind of person you're voting for.
That link is the clear proof that this person is here ONLY to deceive and distort, to dismiss and derail conversation. Does he have a place giving lessons on journalism when he asks "so what if a terror event is faked? does that mean it's not real?"?
Go look at how much he cares about his credibility as an impartial observer, or his general credibility as a human being, he will happily lie, again and again, to himself and you.
Don't believe me, I dare you to start looking at who you are voting for.
@dantheman, @ned,
22 hours old, 17 views, 202 votes.
This repeated liar, this fake, he is the definition of a parasite, a leaching tumor.
Investigate it if you don't believe me.
@bahh , can tell this mother who just burried her daughter, what happened to her if the terror attack was fake?
Now go back to your troll cave and leave us alone.
Shouldn't you establish some credibility before opening your mouth? As if you can lie repeatedly and then distract everyone with "maybe you should say something to some victim" bullshit.
You want me to beg you to stop lying? You want to stop insinuating the bullshit that "it's real because the news says so", especially when the story of "israel is the victim" isn't believable anymore.
The real question is, why argue that EVEN IF IT'S FAKE, IT'S REAL.
Is it fake? Is it real?
Why is there a crane even though the video has no crane? Is there a surveillance camera even though we can see both "videos", or the video being filmed on the computer screen, moving and swaying, not very surveillance camera like? Where is the blood? All that damage and dust and no blood on a white cab, not one visible drip or splat? Who shot the cab, where are the muzzle flashes? Why was the truck blurred?
What can I tell that "mother" that "burried her daughter"? Do I know that woman? Are you that insensitive?
You try to argue yet again that even if it's fake it's real, are you aware you did that?
Why try to act as if there is a crane, why try to act like you didn't lie repeatedly about seeing a crane?
Why change your story a million times, why accept the narrative without question? Why dismiss important questions and discredit the article by lying about the crane and what is seen repeatedly, when everyone can see the same thing? Do you not have any integrity?
You have no credibility, and you're here writing journalism-crashcourse?
This is beyond odd! This is creepy sir! You have no impartiality, you have no credibility as an impartial observer, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
You helped me expose you, thank you. You might not "respond" to me but I have around my finger a very parasitical creature. You.