Too often, we had one side of the story, but not the other. We wrote about something or somebody but then never talked to that affected person or group. And we were sorely lacking in neutral experts overall. So our sourcing was too narrow.
A good example of broad sourcing is this story (click below to see):
http://news.jrn.msu.edu/2017/06/virginias-chesapeake-bay-faces-environmental-issues/
The story only contains three sources, which was the minimum number. But the range is great: there is a subject driver (someone from a program working to protect the bay). There is an affected subject (a beach-goer). And there is a neutral expert (an environmental professor) to help contextualize what the others said.
There's also a range of mediums: we have pictures, and we have a chart.
Really, it's not necessarily the volume of sources that we are looking at. It's the range: are we deeply and broadly exploring the subject area?
Plus, please note ALL info was gained first-hand, from sources and such. There is no taking things from other media, which we should NEVER do. Media can't just take from other media; at some point, someone has to do their own reporting. It's okay that we look at other media, see who their sources are and then content those sources directly ourselves, but we should NOT be citing other media.
If you need some refreshers on soured and sourcing, see the earlier blog posts that are linked below:
Hope this helps!
No comments:
Post a Comment