If this were a print article I'd have enough good solid evidence for a *really* big story.
Since it's not print, but radio, I have to get someone to talk to me, and "hang" the story on what I record.
Right now no one will talk to me. But they know I am on to something. They won't even let me record them saying "there is no wrongdoing".
I'm almost ready to post a craigslist ad: "Wanted, whistleblower. Willing to meet in parking structure late at night. If interested, respond to this address".
12 September 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why not just get someone to talk to you confidentially, then come out with "sources say"?
Or just make shit up like Fox News.;)
We don't use anonymous sources unless someone's job or life is at stake. The issue of anonymous sources is very much a live controversy -- look at the Valerie Plame affair. *If* anyone agrees to talk "on background" or "not for attribution", it's usually because they have an ax to grind. That affects the credibility of your source adversely, which, in turn, affects your *own* credibility, unless you're able to independently verify that yes, indeed, your source's job or life is at stake.
Credibility lost can never be regained. It has to be practically a life and death affair to justify using an anonymous source.
Besides, I don't have anyone at present willing to talk in that way. I have to try other approaches next. That's all there is to it. And I can't stop until (a) I *know* I'm on the wrong track, which would be disappointing, but a relief, (b) someone *else* breaks the story, probably because they don't have to "hang" their story on recorded sound, or (c) I wind up with a complete and fully-fleshed out story.
Make stuff up? Never. I know you're joking but I can't do that. Ever. I can't even be snide and sarcastic like I can online. It's one thing to write for a half dozen readers. It's another to be write news.
Post a Comment