Raise your credibility with “source blocks”

Talk has been thrown back and forth in the comments on this blog (but I’m too lazy to go find them) about the value of the research behind what a journalist produces, especially now that the internet makes it easy and cheap to share.

It turns out that Ian Lamont at The Industry Standard has been doing just that for the past several weeks by providing what he calls source blocks at the end of every post.

A source block is basically an extra paragraph, like academic end notes, that list out the sources a writer referred to when putting together their article. It’s an easy way to show that some research went in to the article, and to give credit to resources that might not earn a direct link (in his case, the American Journalism Review fits the bill).

One of the major trans-continentals that newspapers as a whole seem to have missed is one of transparency and authenticity. Nevermind that news institutions have enjoyed years of credibility as big, immovable bastions of public good; small is the new big, and see-through is the new opaque.

Nowadays, if a journalist doesn’t admit their own biases, create individual connections with their readers, and reveal their own research, then they’re not establishing trust.

Including a source block is one of the more clever ways I’ve seen any journalist attempt to bring clarity to the research, writing, and trust process that is news. I asked Ian a couple questions about his source blocks, and here’s what he had to say:

Jason: In your article, you hint at but don’t quite address the issue of reader trust. Do you think that source transparency, whether or not it comes in the form of source blocks, is enough to reverse the downward trend of reader faith in journalistic integrity?

Ian: If source blocks were widely adopted, I think they would definitely help build trust. Readers are often suspicious of reporters’ newsgathering methods and biases, thanks in large part to the fact that they don’t know how journalists work. Letting readers see for themselves the number, types, and diversity of sources would help bridge this gap.

That said, I don’t know if it’s enough to reverse the trend. In recent years, the New York Times, CBS News, and other high-profile news organizations have been embroiled in scandals involving plagiarism, conflicts of interest, sloppy research and outright lies. Transparency cannot compensate for bad journalism or unethical reporters.

Jason: What’s your take on anonymous sources? It seems like they’re   everywhere these days, especially in tech news…

Ian: Especially tech journalism? I see anonymous sources used every day in mainstream newspapers — they are a staple of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. The Internet has made a lot of people reluctant to go on the record or use their real names — everyone knows the story will live for years in Google.

I don’t think anonymous sources are bad, as they often provide insights or information that cannot be obtained by “official” sources or people who allow themselves to be identified. That said, I can see why some readers are skeptical — are the anonymous sources legitimate? Is there any way to verify their claims?  

This kind up stuff right up your alley? Come to The Pitch, a Seattle event about the future of publishing!