Readings--Journalism+of+Verification,+Kovach

"Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in deception.This damages the credibility of the whole profession by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased." Kovach says that there is no rule or process a journalist can use to be objective. He points out that many news organizations promote themselves as being unbiased when in reality, they are not. It is difficult for a journalist to be objective, because as human beings, our opinions and our backgrounds can be found in everything we write and our choices. Acknowledging this, in the nineteenth century, journalists would present the facts to avoid bias."The call for journalists to adopt objectivity was an appeal for them to develop a consistent method of testing information-a transparent approach to evidence-precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work." While facts can be checked and evidence can be tested, no similar system of verifying a journalist's interpretation exists. Therefore, even the most factual story has bias.
 * The Lost Meaning of Objectivity**

Kovach mentions five parts to a possible scientific method to journalism.: 1. Never add anything that's not there 2. Never deceive the audience 3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and your motives. 4. Rely on your own original reporting. 5. Exercise humility.

Numbers one and two are rather obvious. Adding elements in a story that don't exist or blatantly lying to the audience destroy a journalist's credibility instantly. For number one, he mentions the book "Dutch", a biography of Ronald Reagan by Edmund Morris, in which the author inserts himself as a character in Reagan's early life, despite the fact that Reagan's childhood took place before the author was born. The addition had no positive effect on his book, but ruined his credibility. As for number two, an example in the reading is how authors use brackets or ellipses to point out that a quote had been edited, in order to show that the full quote was different from what was written.

Number three involves somehow letting people know what sources were used in any given article. An extreme example was the 7,000 words of footnotes that accompanied the "Enrique's Journey" series that ran in the Los Angeles Times. Six articles were written about a Honduran teenager's journey to find his mother in the U.S., and all those footnotes were used to prove that the events portrayed in the articles actually happened. Transparency also involves revealing the names of the sources, so readers can factor in the biases of both the writer and the sources. Kovich also goes on to discuss why news stories use anonymous sources despite the sources wanting to have their identities hidden, which contrasts with the idea of transparency.

Number four talks about how journalists should do their own research and not solely rely on another organization's reporting, as well as avoiding speculation as to the motives of certain events. Finally, number five involves a journalist admitting when they don't know certain aspects of a story instead of speculating about them and ending up having to make a public apology and correct the reporting.

We rely on our journalists to have credible information. Their sources are cruicial as to how we get our news. Today journalists have found ways of manipulating the system in using information as a way to get leverage over another. Anonymous sources feed into an obsession with confidentiality and leverage, and no journalist wants news that isn't credible. Joe Lelyveld was an editor of //The New York Times// and came up with a system to deal with anonymous sources:
 * How to be Careful with Anonymous Sources**
 * 1) How much direct knowledge does the anonymous source have of the event?
 * 2) What, if any, motive might the source have for misleading us, gilding the lily, or hiding important facts that might alter the impression of the information?

Only after considering these important questions would Lelyveld think about sharing the information with the public. Deborah Howell, an editor at the Washington Post provided two more rules for anonymous sources, never providing the anonymous source as the first quote and never using the anonymous quote when offering an opinion about someone. Glen Guzzo a former editor at the //Denver Post// also came up with set of rules when determining if information from an anonymous source is credible:
 * 1)  Is the information essential to the story?
 * 2) Is the information fact, not opinion or judgment? (He would not allow anonymity for judgmental statements.)
 * 3) Is the source in a position to truly know-is this an eyewitness?
 * 4) What other indicators of reliability are there (multiple sources, independent corroboration, experience with the source)?
 * 5) What descriptors can you use so the audience can decide what weight to assign this source?