Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Cory, Topeka on December 1, 2008:

Your current methods have created a source of media that is funny with integrity. This isn't something that other news sources that try to be funny do (which is fine).

So why change it?

While you might broaden your pool of stories from week to week, you also run the risk of compromising the integrity that your list has.

In my opinion, keep doing what you are doing as you are doing it. After all, having somebody in the media who reports with integrity seems to be difficult to find these days. I can tell you that I do get extra enjoyment out of your stories knowing that they really are true.

---

Definitely a good question, Cory! I should have made that more explicit. Because: "things change". Newspapers are dying. The Christian Science Monitor, for instance, was once well regarded, but they have had to cease paper publication, and are now "only" a web site. I didn't use them very often, but I occasionally did; because they're not a newspaper anymore, they are no longer eligible as a source under the current policy. Yet they have the same management and reporting staff. It's an arbitrary cutoff.

To be sure, I'll always use "legitimate, mainstream" news sources, so I don't expect any change in the legitimacy of the stories. The question is, with newspapers dying and other media expanding, should I expand my circle a bit? Because the current circle is getting smaller and smaller as time goes by. -rc

Posted by Kenn, Georgia on December 1, 2008:

Randy, I've always found that the people who worry most about whether other people trust them are the people I trust most.

In other words, the fact that you use a source in THIS IS TRUE tells me that it's a legitimate source, because I know you wouldn't want TRUE's reputation (and yours, by extension) sullied by a bad one.

So I say expand your reading horizons if you need to, but remain vigilant before you include it in TRUE. If you find an article that's great, but it sets off your BS detector, don't use it without collaboration.

The news world is changing, and there's no reason for you to continue an already challenging project with one hand tied behind your back.

Posted by David, Denver, CO on December 1, 2008:

Follow your readers into non-paper media, Randy, or they will leave you behind. Groxx already gets non-paper submissions, and I'll bet those submitters are getting discouraged because you don't include their stuff.

It's a waste of effort to go chasing down a paper source of a non-paper story that's right in front of you. Every TV station on Earth has its content in text form online.

OTOH, you may need another research assistant to keep up with the brave new world of non-paper leads. But you know where to find one.

On yet another hand, you covering newspapers leaves True readers free to ignore them. Maybe that's your niche! :-)

Posted by Chris, Colfax California on December 1, 2008:

Your careful choice of sources is important, and I'm sure you will always use common sense when you chose them, but it's not a life or death situation we're talking about here. TIT is entertainment, not national security, not brain surgery. This should help you sleep at night if a new story source turns out to be imperfect. If it doesn't help you sleep at night, I will bring you some warm milk.

I think you tend to be overly careful, and although I commend you for your care, but I also think you can loosen up a bit.

The world is a very funny place and if you broaden your horizons a little I think you will allow a few more guffaws to leak in. This can only help TIT become an even more entertaining place to visit.

Have you considered the possibility of using funny personal stories from readers? I think everybody must have a couple to share. Again, maybe not mainstream, but possibly very entertaining.

---

I wouldn't use funny reader stories -- not as part of TRUE's regular story line-up. It would have to be a new publication if I did them regularly (there are already some here and there in the reader letters), but I'm just not up to starting another publication at this time. -rc

Posted by Felix, Dutch Flat Calif. on December 1, 2008:

Go for it. Your judgement has at least not been inept so far, with the worst possibility being that you have been too cautious. I think the main thing is what you have been doing, staying away from the Weekly Weird News. Just don't start quoting the Onion unless you do that for an April 1 edition...

Posted by D in Florida on December 1, 2008:

I have to ride the fence on this one. I agree that you should certainly "follow your readers" into the expanding world of electronic journalism. But in your original blog post, you specifically asked if you should expand your sources to include TV station web sites. And I question the competence and integrity of many small TV news staffs.

I know that sounds like a horrible slam. But I don't mean it to be. The reality is, however, that the smaller the station... even the "big" stations in smaller markets, as well as a few "small" stations in larger markets... anyway, the smaller the station, the more likely their staff includes a great number of young, unseasoned talent among their reporters, editors and producers. It isn't that the stories they might post are full of lies. But they might be full of holes--caused, perhaps, by incomplete, inadequate reporting or shallow analysis. Or the stories might include certain inconsistencies or hyperbole that would make them "good for TV" but more than a little over-the-top if presented in print.

Finally, TV news stories, especially at the local-station level, rely almost exclusively on their propensity to provide good video to determine their viability and/or importance. (Hence an old saw, "If it bleeds, it leads.") True enough, a picture can be worth a thousand words. But some pictures do not lend themselves well to subsequent description in print.

So beware of your sources. Turn up the sensitivity level on your "B.S.-o-meter" and take a crack at it. But I wouldn't expect you to find many usable stories from local American TV station web sites. And yet, I hope you prove me wrong. I have faith that there are a certain number of young journalists who are genuinely seeking to be the best that they can be, and in turn, do their best for the Fourth Estate.

---

Sure, I'm aware of the problem. But you're giving newspapers much too much credit. They axe experienced (read: more expensive) reporters for recent J-school grads all the time. Editors? We don't need no stinkin' editors! (Have you SEEN some of the sloppy copy that goes out on the AP wire?!) I frankly don't think TV news could be too much worse. Or, to look at it another way, I don't think newspapers are that much better. Indeed the BS-o-Meter has to be on pretty much all the time in any case! And yeah: I'd like to prove us both wrong...! -rc

Posted by Jackie, Tacoma, WA on December 1, 2008:

What? No Weekly World News??

Okay, on a more serious note... I think that if you can find a legitimate news source that has an online text version of a story, that would be fine. Your eye for "legitimate" has always -- when I've had a way to verify it -- seemed pretty solid. It is of course your decision, but I would definitely support your suggested expansion.

(Maybe Weekly World News could be the source for that April 1st edition that's also getting inspiration from the Onion. On second thought, maybe not....)

Posted by Kenn, Georgia on December 1, 2008:

For the record, I think people are joking, but an April Fools edition is a horrible idea. If people can't tell that the Onion's Harry Potter story isn't true, they'll get googly confused by fake stories in THIS IS TRUE.

Again, I think people are joking, but the idea needs to be killed before someone says, "Wait a minute, that just might work!"

---

No worries: I haven't done an "AF Edition" in the past 15 years, and I'm not going to start now. -rc

Posted by Marion in Moscow on December 2, 2008:

Randy, I agree with those agreeing with your move. I'd also like to see you use outside-USA online sources -- ie BBC or CBC.

---

Virtually every issue has foreign stories. My goal is to be half U.S., half foreign, but there isn't enough good stuff in English for me to do that very often. But indeed BBC and CBC would help push toward that. -rc

Posted by Paul, Wayne NJ on December 2, 2008:

If you can find a "legitimate" news source with a story worthy of True, whether it be print or an online text version of a broadcast story, I say go for it. In the years I've subscribed to True, first for free then the premium, I've found that you do your best to verify stories you use, and I doubt this would change any just because you were using online sources vs "hard copy" ones.