Publishers Wary Of Stronger Fact Checking Rules, Cite Editorial License

Michael Hedges October 15, 2020 - Follow on Twitter

In great part good reporting relies on sources. After all without sources, reporting languishes into opinion, valued for its contribution, certainly, but just not the same. But sources - interview subjects - tend not to be as articulate as portrayed. They ramble, speak in phrases, sometimes confusing and quite often choosing unintended words. Reporters work with what they’ve got and fix what they can. And too, some reassemble quotes and such to create a favorite narrative.

This got Norwegian journalist Lars Joakim Skarvoy, working for major daily VG, in trouble. At issue was a report (February 21 2019) featuring a woman who had been in a bar with a prominent politician. She had been assured the interview was “off the record,” meaning without attribution. There was a video. She was, instead, named and quoted in an article unflattering to the prominent politician. A day after the piece appeared, the prominent politician was ousted by his political party. A month later, the woman took her story about being misquoted to TV 2. Immediately thereafter Mr. Skarvoy was placed on leave for “behaving in a way worthy of criticism.” Eighteen months later Schibsted transferred him to TV2 as a political correspondent.

In the ensuing months various professional media organizations, including Schibsted, investigated all of this, largely in terms of journalistic practice and ethics. The Norwegian Press Association (Norsk Presseforbund - NPF) formed a “source committee” to review the implications of it all titled, in Norwegian, “Sa hun virkelig det?” - Did she really say that? The report recommended corrections to the NPF’s long-established “be careful poster” (VVP) displayed in Norwegian newsrooms detailing best practices. Various stakeholders were invited to submit their views.

There were six recommendations. On source protection, added would be that “personal characteristics (of the source) and unsubstantiated allegations should not be made anonymously.” Further, greater protections would be afforded to “inexperienced subjects… who cannot be expected to be aware of the impact of their statements. Do not abuse others' feelings, ignorance or failing judgment.”

Specifically, the possibility of fact checking should be fully outlined. Partly for privacy concerns and partly to protect the independence of each news organization “no outsider has the right to receive unpublished material.” However, the “source’s right to quote check … is limited to factual errors. No one without editorial authority can intervene in the editing and presentation of editorial material.”

Regarding source quoting, the news organization would be further responsible for “reproducing the meaning of what is used by the interviewee’s statements in indirect quotations. Direct quotations must be reproduced precisely.” And last but not least; “Be vigilant when using social media as a source.”

In general, publishers and private-sector broadcasters opposed changes in the reporting guidelines. Changes “are unnecessary,” said the submission from TV 2, quoted by journalisten.no ( October 14), “and they are triggered by a single case that is neither representative of the industry nor VG. The (VVP) must be principled and overriding, and should therefore remain as it is.” The same came from VG. “This is proof that the press' ethical regulations worked exactly as intended,” said its statement. “We do not need any changes to the VVP to be able to prevent new errors of the same nature.” From Aftenposten; "The report makes the right diagnosis, but stumbles in the choice of medicine.”

See also...

• Hot Topics - Media in Norway