"Reportedly." That lazy "journalists'" way to avoid being a journalist. It is a substitute for conveying the facts. It is a deception and should be stricken from the vocabulary of journalists everywhere. It is a favorite crutch of the Rhinoceros Times and now the News & Record's editor
John Robinson uses it to hilarious (unintended) effect.
"Can one of the bloggers who reportedly advised the candidate or the candidate himself tell us about it?"
Where was it reported that bloggers advised the candidate and if such a thing has been reported, why is Robinson so in the dark? Funny.
[11:12 A.M. edited for spelling]
6 comments:
I agree that "reportedly" can be used to withhold sources of information that would be useful to readers.
But it can also be used to guard a source who has told you something not off-the-record but not-for-attribution.
Every journalist has sources who will tell them things as long as it doesn't come back to haunt them. When you're writing in the paper there's one standard for using that information and masking the source (can you get it any other way? How important is getting the info out there? Etc)
What's the standard on a blog? I don't know. As someone who used to regularly blog ABOUT news stories as I wrote them, public reaction to them, etc, I definitely think there are (quite rightly) two standards on many things when a journalist blogs.
I try not to use it as a "crutch" when I write a news story, but on my own blog I might use it more freely.
"standard on a blog"
Standard? Blog?
There's an oxymoron for 'ya!
Joe,
Thanks for the insight. If a reporter means to say, "According to an uncorroborated source on background," I think that would be a more honest representation than "reportedly."
I don't use "reportedly" to mean "as a source told me," I use it to mean "as reported elsewhere, but not conclusively verified." As such, it's useful.
Oh, please.
It's reported because a couple of my reporters told me about it. Does it have to be "published?" I say no. I guess you say yes. OK. We disagree.
But given the sorts of things the blogosphere talks about, particularly as it pertains to candidates and the newspaper, I was surprised that this wasn't commented on.
One of the "reports" is that you discussed the issue of talking with the newspaper with Ben, Roch. Did you?
Integrity in journalism! Get em Roch! You should spread the word to all the triad bloggers.
Post a Comment