The Guidelines We Use to Report the News (Washington Post Says 'Trust Us--Not the Internet')

The Washington Post ^ | Sunday, March 7, 2004 | Leonard Downie, Jr.

[kristinn]

A succession of well-publicized missteps by the news media in recent years -- from misrepresentation of facts and questionable reporting methods to outright fabrication and plagiarism -- has understandably shaken public trust in the media. The Washington Post, like several other large news organizations, has responded by reviewing our policies on accuracy, fairness and our relationships with news sources and readers.

We have spent several months on this effort and recently produced a restatement of our policies covering, among other things, reporting techniques, use of direct quotations, attribution of information, use of confidential sources and corrections of our mistakes. We are now discussing these policies in detail with the hundreds of reporters and editors in our newsroom and in our bureaus around the Washington area, the nation and the world. The conversations go to the heart of what we do and how we do it. I want to tell you, our readers, about these guidelines.

SNIP

So we have updated and expanded our guidelines to help us publish stories that are accurate and complete. That goal has become more challenging in an era of Internet-borne rumors, talk-show speculation and sophisticated spinning by newsmakers who want to influence how the news is reported while hiding their responsibility for doing so.

SNIP

That's why we will try to explain to readers why a source is not being named. We also will strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why such a source would be knowledgeable and whether the source has a particular point of view -- for example, "a police official involved in the investigation," "an aide to a Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee" or "a senior Pentagon official who disagrees with the administration's policy." We want at least one Post editor to know the identity of each unnamed source cited in the newspaper, as was the case during Watergate, so that editors can help decide whether to use the source in a story.

We also strive to treat our sources fairly by putting their statements in context to present what they say accurately. When we quote someone in The Post, the quotation should be the words that were spoken. We should not alter a quotation to make it easier to understand or to correct the speaker's use of language. When necessary to make clear what someone is intending to say or to avoid embarrassing someone who has difficulty using the language, we may opt to avoid quotation and paraphrase what was said instead.

SNIP

[kristinn]

The Washington Post knows its credibility, along with the rest of the lamestream press, is taking a well deserved beating. Len Downie is telling his gullible readers, "Trust us." LOL! Good one, Len.

[BigSkyFreeper]

When they're left to explain everything in detail to the reader(s), you know they're guilty of the charges.

[Zeppo]

So, when can we expect to see the Washington Post acknowledge on the front page that the "protest" by 9/11 victim families against the Bush campaign ad was orchestrated by a left-wing group receiving direct financial support from Kerry's wife?

[Dan from Michigan]

All I can think of is the Animal House quote. "You (screwed) up. You trusted us."

[BigSkyFreeper]

When will we see a story about the victims families who were coached by the DNC? *crickets chirping* .....Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Shermy]

That goal has become more challenging in an era of Internet-borne rumors,

They're upset their rumor-mongering turf is being infringed.

When necessary to make clear what someone is intending to say or to avoid embarrassing someone who has difficulty using the language, we may opt to avoid quotation and paraphrase what was said instead.

Translation: we're going to continue to lie. If they really wanted to "make" it "clear" they could simply re-ask the source to "make" it "clear".

[WOSG]

Why should the lamestream media, with it's penchant for anonymous sources, extreme liberal bias, and unwillingness to police its own error-makers, be considered credible in any sense?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Nah, they're envious of Drudge.

[Shermy]

ping.

[FoxInSocks]

When we quote someone in The Post, the quotation should be the words that were spoken. We should not alter a quotation to make it easier to understand or to correct the speaker's use of language.

All I can think of is the Animal House quote. "You (screwed) up. You trusted us."

You're not following the Washington Post guidelines! :-)

[Savage Beast]

I like the part about "sophisticated spinning by newsmakers who want to influence how the news is reported"--as opposed to sophisticated spinning by newspapers who want to influence public opinion.

[Old Sarge]

Memo to WAPO Editors:

We don't believe a word of it.

Not one, single solitary word.

And never will again.

When your anti-American-slanted greedy capitalistic corporation finally goes the way of the dodo, wholesome cheerleaders, and one-platoon football, not even the dead trees you consumed to insult my country will mourn your passing.

[davisfh]

" We have spent several months on this effort and recently produced a restatement of our policies covering, among other things, reporting techniques, use of direct quotations, attribution of information, use of confidential sources and corrections of our mistakes."

'pears to me that the Washington Post is in a death sweat.

[zarf]

Bingo. The 9/11 family nonsense was a classic illustration of biased, lazy "journalism". Absolutely no background on the group that was bitching about the ads.

Pure crap.

[Calvin Locke]

...to avoid embarrassing someone who has difficulty using the language,

Translation: To avoid embarrassing the illegal aliens, the NEA, and graduates of the poverty pimp schools of shakedowns.

[NonValueAdded]

That is an enduring quote, isn't it :)

[BJungNan]

People are smart enough to sort out what is true and false.

When a story appearing on the internet is wrong, it will be corrected and the Washington Post will be sure to let us know - that is, when a correction fits their agenda.

What the Washington Post does not like is that we now have the internet to catch them in their distortion of the news and the biased presentaton of their news.

Go ahead, Washington Post, stay in denial if you want, but less and less people are taking you seriously and see you for the liberal shills that you truely are.

[BJungNan]

Go ahead, Washington Post, stay in denial if you want, but less and less people are taking you seriously and see you for the liberal shills that you truely are.

Go ahead, Washington Post, stay in denial if you want, but less and less people are taking you seriously. And people increasingly see you for the liberal shills that you truely are.

[Ken H]

Go ahead, Washington Post, stay in denial if you want, but less and less people are taking you seriously and see you for the liberal shills that you truely are.

You can say that again!

[syriacus]

MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL, IS THE AMERICAN PRESS HONEST AT ALL?