On the subject of checking everything before you print it…

This is a good piece looking back at Alan Abel, who perpetrated many pranks that suckered the press (http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/549395)

Consider how trusting we journalists can be, especially when writing feature stories and profiles. How far do we go to verify information before we include it in a story? Is “well, he said it” enough?

In a recent column in Quill, I wrote that we shouldn’t omit the name of someone portraying Santa Claus, if it’s part of the story. I received a pointed response from an angry reader who told me I must have had unresolved issues about Santa Claus as a child. (A decent accusation if you don’t know me, but not true.)

Today, I saw this Chicago Tribune column (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/12/my-santa-claus.html) on two parents with different views on what truth children should be told about Santa.

My point wasn’t what parents should tell children – that’s up to them – but that newspapers shouldn’t intentionally play along with legends and myths.

Unfortunately, both newspapers for which I have worked in my career have printed fake letters to the editor, so I can empathize with The New York Times, which just did it (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/opinion/22letters.corr.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1230094800&en=03cc697c3c1376e9&ei=5087%0A). A key journalistic principle applies: verify, verify, verify.

Remember when columnists were columnists and reporters were reporters, and never the twain shall meet? This column by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30pubed.html) shows that the newspaper isn’t so strict about that wall. The Times has never shied away from inserting bits of informed analysis into its news stories, but this goes beyond that, allowing reporters to give opinions about the news they cover – as long as a news story and a column don’t appear on the same day, which, as Hoyt points out, is a peculiar rule. This is just what we don’t need – further confusing the public about the line between news and opinion.