Boston Globe ombudsperson Richard Chacón, in a column today (gone tomorrow), responds to complaints that some op-eds have gotten facts wrong. He concludes:

Recent revelations of poor sourcing in news stories have brought tighter standards into many newsrooms. The influential people who help us shape our opinions should adopt the same rules.

IMO, that idea doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. What does he mean by “rules”? Standards for truth? Standards for how truth is to be ascertained? Editorial processes? Besides, op-eds aren’t reportage. For one thing, I think we want to leave room for an op-ed writer to say, “It seems pretty likely that…” and “We may never know, but my guess is…” Op-eds can use metadata to condition assertions in ways that reporters can’t or at least don’t. I wish Chacón had been more specific in his response.

Chacón also lets pass without comment the statement by Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe’s op-ed editor, that there is “a trust that the writer wouldn’t want to undercut a piece by making errors.” [That’s Chacón’s paraphrase.] If that’s how newsrooms operated, there’d be no need for fact-checking. So, Richard, should op-eds follow newsroom rules or not?

He also writes:

In practice, attributing every piece of information might be tough to do in a typical 750-word op-ed column, but here’s a good suggestion from [columnist Robert] Kuttner: Make op-ed writers include their source information in brackets when submitting a column. That way, the editor knows where the material comes from and can decide whether to include that information in the final product.

Gosh, if only there were a medium that had no space constraints and that had a convenient, unobtrusive mechanism for connecting — “linking,” one might say — statements to sources. (Hint: Richard, publish the op-eds online with links to sources. And put in comment boards so we can supplement and dispute the author’s info.) [Tags: BostonGlobe media journalism]

Categories: Uncategorized dw