With every story, it is the editor's job to be skeptical, especially of information sources provide. If it's not possible for the claim to be confirmed through background research, then the best alternative is finding as many witnesses as possible to describe the wild story. Even if witnesses are found, the editor must then question the plausibility of their claims-- for example, is what they're saying unreasonable?
In the example with the eagle snatching the puppy, there were too many variables unknown to really justify publishing this it in a newspaper. The gas attendant was the only witness. The story's location was miles and miles from the newspaper's circulation area. There's no attribution for any of the statements (about the owners' exclamations). This just seemed like an amusing story on a slow news day. Still, I think readers enjoy these tales. Perhaps creating a blog for the newspaper's Web site would be a good compromise: The paper doesn't get criticized for running "non-news," and the readers still get their laughs.
For the article and critique, visit this link: http://www.snopes.com/critters/mishaps/dognap.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment