[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[Matt Brown]

On 7/9/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a letter
> to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name,
> address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can
> check that you really did send it.

I've had letters published in many different newspapers and other
publications.  While all or almost all require such information, I
have never, ever had any of them check back.

I'd imagine if I was claiming to be a well-known individual, they
MIGHT check it, but even then, I have my doubts whether they would do
so every single time.

> Newspapers have processes in place to avoid this
> scenario, and they have libel insurance for when things go wrong. We
> have none of those things, which is why we piggy-back on other
> people's, by using only material that has already been checked.

I think it's a huge amount of faith you have in the press that they
check stuff at all well.  My experience is the opposite.

They DO tend to fact-check things that look like they might get them
in trouble - e.g. the famous and influential. Otherwise, most
publications are much slacker with the fact-checking.

Newspapers are also, IMO, much less reliable outside of the sphere of pure news.

-Matt