Know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source

The Truth Matters, Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of my book, The Truth Matters. Chapter 1 is available here. I think part of the solution to the crisis of the media is getting back to basics.

Key points:

· Primary sources are generally more reliable than secondary sources.

· The quality of evidence varies and documentary sources are usually best.

· Why officials leak information.

When reading or listening to any news report, the underlying source of the information must be evaluated to determine its truth or veracity. By this, I don’t necessarily mean the reporter or the news organization, but rather does the reporting rely upon someone with direct, personal knowledge or is it basically hearsay, something someone heard elsewhere and cannot vouch for the truth of.

If I personally witness an event, if I am present at a meeting where something occurred, if I am discussing something I personally did, these are all examples of primary sources. If I am repeating something someone told me, which is secondhand information, and the ultimate, original source is unidentified, this would be a less reliable source.

This is not to say that all primary sources should be taken at face value because people lie or they misremember or they have some ax to grind that causes them to shade the truth in some way by, for example, leaving out some critical piece of information in otherwise truthful statements.

This is why on crime shows like “CSI” the investigators always say the eyewitness accounts are often unreliable. It is better to rely on the forensic evidence gathered from the crime scene. So too with journalism. This is why documentary evidence is often preferred even to eyewitness accounts.

Examples of documentary evidence would include things like tax returns, where people could be punished by tax authorities for untruthful statements, or contracts, where lies can lead to litigation, or other sources of information where there is reason to believe that people have an incentive to be truthful.

Evaluating the value of either testimony or documentary evidence may be dependent on how close it is to the event in question. A statement or document produced shortly after an event occurs is likely to be more reliable than, say, a memoir produced many years later, although it may still be preferred to a secondary source. Thus one would probably put more weight on a diary entry than a published memoir that may be self-serving or based on selective memory.

Obviously, the casual reader cannot be expected to research every statement of fact they come across in the news or on social media. That is the job of the journalist. But one can keep an eye out for terminology that would lead you to either trust or be suspicious of some fact or evidence that is being used to justify a conclusion.

In the case of a reporter, was she actually there when some politician made a statement? If not, is there a reference or a link to the original source? These days it is very easy to embed audio or video online and one can often listen or watch to see if a quote is accurate and whether the person being quoted in proper context, is a valid primary source or someone with an ax to grind who is passing on hearsay.

Politicians frequently assert greater knowledge than they actually have. Having worked on Capitol Hill for many years, at the Treasury Department and the White House, I know I often gave interviews based not on personal experience or inside knowledge, but based on what I read in the paper that day. In a sense, it was a case of the blind leading the blind.

But not entirely. On any given day there may be competing facts or explanations for something the administration was doing. As an insider, I might have knowledge of which one is right or which one is wrong. Simply by virtue of being in the milieu where policies were being discussed or knowing personally the people involved, I might be able to separate a likely true scenario from one that is probably false. This is of value to reporters even if I got my basic information from the media in the first place.

One thing someone on the inside always needs to be on the lookout for is divulging some piece of information known only to a very limited number of people. This may allow a “leak” to be traced back to you and get you in trouble. In the vast bulk of cases, leaks are harmless or even intentional. All you have done is deprive someone higher in the pecking order from releasing the information herself, thereby garnering chits with some reporter who may repay it with a “puff piece” later on.

It is also unfortunately a fact that reporters are much more likely to believe something they think is a leak than an official announcement of the same information. There is actually a practical reason for this. An official announcement, such as a press release, is available to all reporters simultaneously and therefore of no special value to any one of them. Certain news organizations that strive to be comprehensive in their reporting, such as the Associated Press, may report it, but many others will ignore it as being inherently un-newsworthy.

On the other hand, if a reporter receives a leak, it is like having an exclusive. If she can get that information out quickly she will scoop all her competitors. The problem is that some people who offer up leaks or exclusives may be lying. They may be gambling that a reporter is more interested in a scoop than accuracy. The source may be sending up a trial balloon—putting forth a proposal before it has been agreed upon to test its popularity or viability. The columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak were notorious for being willing to float trial balloons in return for a scoop.

Reputable reporters will not take leaks at face value. They will know that they may be manipulated by their source. The reporter will seek out confirmation and will question the source to find out if she is a primary source with direct knowledge or just passing along hallway gossip. Unfortunately, deadline pressure makes such responsible journalism harder to do. There are always news outlets willing to publish first and ask questions late. Sadly, this has led to a “race to the bottom” in which disreputable news outlets get the clicks and make the money, while those that are responsible and perform due diligence lose out.