What exactly do we actually know? It’s a trickier question than it sounds.
When people start working in the news business, they realize that there are different levels of knowledge. That’s not a statement about a person’s level of education, it’s a statement about the soundness of facts.
In everyday life, people are free to make assumptions and jump to conclusions even if they don’t have the evidence to back it up. The internet is full of people who are sure that they know what’s going on but can’t prove it.
In journalism, acting that way could land you in court.
So, while trying not to sound like Donald Rumsfeld talking about “unknown unknowns,” here are what I found to be the three levels of knowledge in the news business:
1) We’re not yet sure what the facts are, or if it’s even worth looking into.
We get a vague tip with little information. It may be an allegation of wrongdoing. It may also be a tip of a current public safety incident, but we have little information and there are no photos from the scene to show that anything’s going on.
If the allegation is minor or outlandish, or if information about the alleged incident is extremely sketchy, it may not be worth devoting a staff member’s time to look into it further. If it requires sending a person to an active scene, the decision may also depend on how long it will take to get there (do we even know exactly where it’s happening?) A decision may depend on available resources at the time.
2) We have enough information to devote resources, but not yet enough to report it.
We’ve seen some photos or video that shows something is going on, or have heard scanner chatter about a public safety incident. There’s enough confidence to send someone to the scene but we don’t have enough information to report it yet. (Note that it is a possible violation of federal law to report information you hear on the scanner, but the law is unclear — read more from the RTDNA.)
In a spot news incident, we may wait for our news crew to arrive at the scene to confirm that something is going on before reporting it.
If a reporter is investigating an allegation, it may be days or weeks before the reporter is able to gather enough information to determine if there’s a news story to report.
3) We have enough information to report something.
The reporter has arrived at an active public safety response scene and can see that something is happening. A fire or a car crash is obvious because it can be seen after the fact, but incidents like shootings and stabbings require reporters to wait for police to confirm what happened. While we wait for the full facts, we can report that there is a police response in a particular area.
In the instance of an allegation, we may wait until we feel we have given all parties involved enough time to respond to our questions. If we have enough confirmed facts, we may proceed with the story even if one of the parties has not responded to our inquiries, and explain the efforts that we have made to give them a chance to comment.
So, how are you making your decisions in life? Have you confirmed that what you think is true is actually real? Perhaps too many people are basing their decisions these days on feels rather than facts.
Jon Ellis has worked in small-market TV news for 20 years in assistant news director and producer positions.
LINK: More Newsroom Notes