I'm always astounded by how little most people know about the process that goes behind the creation of the print edition of the newspaper and our website each day.
Almost every day I field phone calls from people with outlandish stories that they believe should be in the newspaper. Many of them involve activity that would certainly be classified as criminal.
People seem genuinely surprised when I start asking them questions about their story. For some reason, they believe that information should simply flow from their lips into print - or online.
Uh, folks, it doesn't really work that way - except on Twitter and Facebook. Don't even get me started on that.
I usually ask the caller if a police report has been filed in the situation. Or if it applies, if they have taken any legal action against the person they are sure has wronged them.
What I am looking for is a paper trail, documents on which we can base a story.
The callers seem perplexed that their word is not enough. Of course, they are not interested in just any story. They are interested in 'their' version of the story.
When I start asking for names, places and dates, they usually go quiet. When I ask them if they will go on the record with an reporter, they get a lot less interested in the story.
Yes, we do have a Sound Off line where people can vent their spleen. But it is heavily edited. You want to know what kind of people are out there walking among us? You should listen to the unvarnished version of Sound Off that flows into that line every day.
I bring up all of this because of a story that got national headlines this week.
It involved a woman who came forward to the Washington Post, supposedly with a salacious story about Alabama Republican U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.
The story was false. It appeared to be part of a sting operation, hoping to get the Post to print the false information, then make them look bad.
But the Post reporters did what all reporters do. They started asking questions. They met with the woman and confronted her with inconsistencies in her story.
Then the woman did something I have dealt with scores of times in my journalism career. She decided to call the whole thing off. Only it's not that easy. Her conversation was on the record. In fact, it was recorded on both audio and video.
The Post ran story about the woman's hoax story and her connections to conservative media.
You can view that video of the Post reporter interviewing the woman here.
This is what we do every day.
Are we perfect? Hardly. Do we make mistakes? Unfortunately, all too often.
It's journalism. And it's needed more than ever.
Comments