Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kat, in the midwest on December 23, 2008:

Hey now, don't be knocking the Weekly World News. It's really hilarious sometimes. I don't read it often, but when I do, I enjoy mentally categorizing stories (it's like BS-detector training). 1. Obviously fake, absurd (e.g. "Elvis sighted on far side of moon"). 2. Conceivable, but unlikely, and WWN probably made it up or wildly exaggerated something factual. 3. Fairly plausible, probably has happened somewhere, but nonetheless THIS story looks like WWN made it up or exaggerated. 4. Probably an actual true account. Some of category 4 and a few of category 3 are the kind of stories that you could publish in True... IF you could verify them.

Which brings me to my serious point. I think you should, and will have to, expand your sources. But you already know that caution is required. We faced - but didn't definitely resolve - the same problem when I was on a law review. Law reviews favor printed sources too, but you've explained the problem with that. I spent more than one afternoon scrolling through microfilms trying to find a print version of an online story.

I had a very rough mental ranking: anything available in PDF is approaching as good as a printed source. Online press releases were next up. Then online news articles with bylines or from wire sources, or other known publishers. Anything below that, we would ask the author to try to find something better if it was something they relied on heavily, or write cautiously if not (e.g., "So-and-so reported that xyz. If true, that would..."). The second approach is no good for you, obviously.

Oh, and obviously my ranking also requires consideration of the source. Some press releases are fluff. I would probably trust a blog posting from the NYT more than a PDF from an unknown website. Though I wouldn't think you would use a blog posting ever for your purposes. The ones that are most reliable generally point you to a primary source anyway.

Posted by tim, colorado on January 13, 2009:

Newspapers like to think of themselves the purest keepers of the journalistic flame, but they are in a serious decline, both in readership and, in my opinion, integrity.

With so many of them merging, reducing staff, and outright going under, your pool for potential stories is shrinking. The need to expand your sources is inevitable.

What about maintaining True's integrity? The very fact you are airing this concern bodes well. Transperancy and vigilance, and the rest will take care of itself.

Posted by Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on January 21, 2009:

I'll join the choir and say I hope you do find more sources, if you really want to go down that path. (I'm thinking maybe doing so will take even MORE of your time!)

A number of people have mentioned your integrity, and that's something that shines through in every issue. When I first started reading your publications, I did check them out -- and then, over time, I realized I didn't need to do that, as your stories *always* checked out.

I used to do an occasional private-circulation newsletter for foreign friends here, and I know what it's like to get burned, since I ended up printing something I genuinely believed to be true only to find out it wasn't. Ouch!

Whatever you decide, I plan to keep on reading....