By Alex Smith
The post-publication discovery that you’ve made a reporting error can feel a lot like Wile E. Coyote’s shock after realizing he’s run off a cliff, says National Geographic deputy research director Brad Scriber.
Even after his endless pursuit of Road Runner leads him off solid ground, the cartoon villain continues to speed through the air, until he looks down, understands his predicament and plummets.
Both author and coyote usually emerge from these situations relatively unscathed, but reporting errors can have consequences beyond spreading misinformation. They can diminish reader trust, harm story subjects and sources, damage a publication’s brand and lead to lawsuits.
Scriber was one member of a panel of fact-checkers who shared their collective wisdom and practical tips in a Saturday afternoon session at ScienceWriters2015 in Cambridge, Mass.
Other panelists included author Brooke Borel, Nature features editor Brendan Maher, and Retraction Watch reporter Shannon Palus. The session was organized and moderated by freelancer Cassandra Willyard.
The panel lamented the industry’s shift away from using dedicated fact-checkers and questioned whether writers really can accurately and thoroughly fact-check their own work, as they are increasingly expected to do.
Journalists should think of writing and fact-checking as separate and perhaps opposing pursuits, the panel advised. Scriber described much of the writing process as “looking for connections” and creating narrative flow between facts and concepts. Fact checking, by contrast, involves skeptically scrutinizing text to see where factual questions, uncertainty or errors stop the writing from telling an accurate story.
To accommodate this shift in thinking, Palus recommends that reporters separate the two activities, instead of combining them into the same process. During writing, mark facts that need checking, she says, and revisit these after the writing is complete. Reporters should build fact-checking into their timetables for each assignment, ideally taking a bit of time away from the project following the writing portion for mental reset and renewed perspective.
Science reporting faces special fact-checking challenges, especially when articles are based on press releases. Scriber says releases frequently contain three mistakes:
- Incorrectly translating research findings to advice on behavioral change.
- Confusing correlation as causation.
- Assuming that animal research applies directly to humans.
He says reporters should confirm directly with researchers whenever possible to avoid spreading errors.
Fact checking quotations can also be difficult, and reporters should be aware of the quotation policies for the publication they are working for, as these can vary widely. Panel members agreed that asking a source to confirm a quotation word-for-word should be avoided, because scientists often want to revise their language. Brooke suggested an alternative strategy: read the exact quote you wish to use, saying that you are simply paraphrasing their words and seeking confirmation of the facts contained within.
The panel acknowledged fact checking can be painstaking work, but Scriber said many journalists would benefit by reconsidering its value.
“Fact checking is not a punishment for bad behavior,” he said. “It’s how you make your work stronger.”
