To retain credibility, information must be verified

I’ve spent dozens of hours in recent weeks trying to verify portions of letters that contain inflammatory political points. They reference abortion cases, alleged bombing plots, academic records of politicians, claims of infidelity and legislation passed in other states. Some issues pre-date my birth.
Some of the references stem from shared e-mails, from things letter writers have been told, from things they read or have seen on television – none of which is good enough attribution.
After a series of letters deriding Sen. John McCain, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Most recent letters are laundry lists of Sen. Barack Obama’s perceived failings and sins. They have a terrible sameness that makes me believe many have the same, or similar, sources. And many of them include verifiably inaccurate information.
I’m terribly alarmed by the reaction of writers when I call to discuss these issues with them. Years ago, when confronted with facts refuting their claims, writers would do one of two things: Apologize, or explain they were given bad information, and then apologize.
That does not happen today. Respect for journalists and the truth have slid so far that writers argue and kick and snarl and claim that we are trying to control their message. The rise of the Internet is a beautiful thing – it’s allowed me to do more research than I could have ever imagined from my office. I could have never found court cases or legislation passed in other states without at least going to the local library. But the Internet is rife with errors, bad information and outright lies. And every person with an opinion and a blog is not really a political expert.
When I find verifiable inaccuracies in a letter, that information has to be communicated to the writer. Truth is all we have to stand on. Several recent writers have challenged me on that. They didn’t believe that I actually verify the information in letters (I do) or that any newspaper did that (most do, but all should).
“The New York Times doesn’t verify information before they publish it,” one asserted.
That is how far journalism has fallen. This person has zero faith in a newspaper that many people consider one of the best in the country. And if The Times doesn’t verify, why should I? We never got to brass tacks on the accuracy of the claims in his letter. They were true in his opinion and he didn’t want to spend any more time making changes.
Honestly, I felt sick the rest of the day. This was an educated, earnest person, successful in his career and firm in his beliefs. His views on the media are likely shared by many readers. How have things gotten this bad?
Being a journalist was and is a noble profession. We investigate government. We root out corruption. We tell your neighbors’ stories; the good, the bad and the ugly. We do check our facts. You can believe what you see in print.
Our job is to be there, for you, at council meetings, school board meetings and ribbon cuttings and tell you what you missed. And when your money is being spent, we are there to account for it and explain it to you.
We became the enemy because some groups only want there to be one message – theirs. But our job is to give divergent points of view. That means some of the people will always be upset. It also means everyone gets a turn.
Honesty and sharing are two elementary school lessons people need to remember as we enter the final weeks of the presidential race. To the best of my ability, we won’t knowingly publish letters that include inaccurate information about any candidate.
And yes, I will be checking.
Suzanne Tate is the opinion page editor of the Bristol Herald Courier. Reach her at state@bristolnews.com or (276) 645-2534.