[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
> newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
> out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
> Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
> journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
> might be validated.
>   
Trouble is, not even a scoop or Pulitzer can make a source "reliable", 
which is a concept more to do with minimum rather than maximum 
standards.  "Verifiability from reliable sources" is a good policy, but 
the good part is the verifiability. What we have had to say about 
"reliable sources" has never been that impressive.  I hear all the time 
on the radio that "unconfirmed reports" say something has happened; 
obviously that means the source concerned is not, stand-alone, 100% 
reliable as far as the BBC is concerned.  And that's how it is: rumour 
and correct facts get mixed into primary news reporting.  The fact that 
a rumour may check out afterwards is hardly the issue.

Anyway, if there had been several independent sources for the Rohde 
business, the dam would have broken.  As it is, I think the systemic 
bias around WP in favour of including high amounts of detail about 
living English-speaking journalists is very noticeable. 

Charles