Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Jeremy, Sedro Woolley, WA on December 2, 2008:

Any source you feel to be legit should be used, whether it be a newspaper or TV. I agree about not using tabloids. If you feel a lesser known source to be legit, use it. Sometimes, each type of media would have different stories that the other doesn't have.

You've been doing well so far with your sources, and I think it's a good idea to expand it, especially if you feel you aren't getting enough stories.

I'm not sure what else to say, so I'll stop now [smile].

Posted by Mike from Dallas on December 2, 2008:

Your stories are recent, and the source can be checked if someone wants to get more info about it. As you said, broadcast news is now available on their websites for a short time if someone wants to verify a story. TV news sites have to continually update their sites which causes older stories to drop off, but even newspaper sites archive their stories after a few weeks, making them available only at a fee. As for the journalistic integrity of either the print or broadcast media, it's more telling, not in what they say, but what they leave out.

Posted by Brian, Tucson AZ on December 2, 2008:

I really think you need to be careful here. While I consider the text stories that are posted directly to the local TV station's website as fairly good, I have seen that the transcripts of the actual broadcasts for the same station to be horribly inaccuarate and incomplete. It definitely seems as though these are done by two different groups. The first by reporters, the second by interns/office staff. It may seem like a minor distiction, but I thought I'd warn you (and everyone else) of the issue. I'd recommend checking a few for yourself, as a test, before deciding to use transcripts in general.

---

I doubt I'll use transcripts for anything but quotes, and even then I'd check it against the video. My intent is to only get story details from printed text stories, not transcripts. -rc

Posted by Tony, Japan on December 2, 2008:

Just out of curiosity, what does a wire service look like in the internet age?

As regards sources, tread softly.

You are persistent in reminding people that your "Stella Awards" are the real deal (and rightly so), so with a title like "This is True" on your bread and butter project, even _one_ "urban legend" getting through could hurt your credibility permanently. It's not like you are facing a dearth of material, are you?

(Completely off topic, but is "Two Time Winner of the 'This is True' Tagline Challenge" something I should add to my Resume? Are there many others who can claim such glory?)

---

(I don't know if you're the only one with that distinction, actually. I've never invested the time to do statistics on them. -rc)

Posted by Felix, Dutch Flat Calif. on December 2, 2008:

Playing devil's advocate, I wasn't at all serious about the April Fools edition, but it could be fun if you called it "This Isn't True" or "This Is False". Maybe a way to blow off steam once a year.

It probably wouldn't be as good tho. Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to sound plausible.

---

The way I have it on the front page is, "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." As for blowing off steam, that's what TRUE is! I use it to blow off steam every week! -rc

Posted by Josh in Arkansas on December 2, 2008:

I hardly ever use the newspaper for my news anymore. Aside from very local news (city/county stuff), which I get from my local newspaper's website, if I want news I'm likely going to either local TV sites or CNN/BBC sites. With everything available in text online, I see no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of it just as your readers are. I think it would also make it easier for you to find the international stories you want, as you'll have sources outside AP/Reuters.

As for whether it's legitimate, you already have to make that decision for newspapers, and I don't think you'll have much trouble doing it for broadcast media websites. This will also allow you to expand to other internet-only sources (Slate or Salon, for example). I trust you to figure out whether the story is legitimate and the source is mainstream.

Overall, I think it's a great idea.

Posted by Aaron in Portland, OR on December 2, 2008:

A simple yes or no decision on the legitimacy of a source may not be the way to go. News source trustworthiness is a spectrum. You could assign (or find) ratings, say 1 to 5, decide how much news you want to/need to plow through to get your material, then add top-rated sources to the "OK" list until you have enough. Review the list every once in a while, because things do change.

I wouldn't limit yourself by media type except for convenience. Material in English that's readily available on the web from a source on your OK list is the goal. "Only from newspapers" just gets in the way.

One broadcast source you could definitely add is National Public Radio in the US. Their news is good, much of it is original, and there are transcripts on the web.

(On "Morning Edition", there is a weird-but-true note at the bottom of the hour, two per day. I have been known to turn the radio on to catch that, then off when the actual news starts again.)

Posted by Steve - in Aiken, SC on December 2, 2008:

I'm like a couple of posters - I get the majority of my news from web sites since I travel a lot and daily papers would just pile up.

I am in agreement with opening up the sources -- basically it needs to be from a place you can refer to with the other guidelines you have already mentioned. I am not advocating you putting the link to every source in your columns - but you have posted some and made references as appropriate.

Posted by Neal, Massachusetts on December 3, 2008:

I think adding CNN to your sources is a good idea. Having worked with the AP newswire, and been disappointed with its quality (I work for a small "local" radio station), I think that multiple resources are a must.

The AP newswire can be very limited in what it allows its clients to post and use (ie. The station I work for is RI, so you are "allowed" to see local stories from RI and MA, but nowhere else in the country, stories expire after 14 days).

I hope that CNN can compete with AP on this venture and offer us "little guys" a better solution.

Posted by Kim in California on December 4, 2008:

As long as *you* are convinced it is true, and can make it funny, I don't care where you get it.