The basic rule that a news story editor must follow is to clearly explain where the information was obtained. In a long email, reader Alberto Fernández reproaches that this rule was not applied in the reproduction of a private conversation, elevated to a headline, that the newspaper published on the front page: MAR to Amador after the sentence: “Congratulations, you destroyed them.”. This is an exchange of mobile phone messages between Miguel Angel Rodriguez, sea, Head of the Office of the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and her partner Alberto González Amador, after the conviction of the former State Prosecutor.
The reader sees that it is not made clear how the editor knew of the conversation, or at least how he verified it, so that it is possible to know whether it was a verbatim transcript or a reconstruction of the exchange. He adds: “The problem is not simple.” “The essay uses this phrase as a narrative focus and as a defining element of MAR’s character. His selfish character, his lack of wisdom, and his intention to turn a judicial condemnation into a political victory… the entire interpretive weight of the essay rests on this quotation mark. Without knowledge of its origin or reliability, the reader is left disarmed.”
Information can only be obtained in three ways: because the journalist is at the scene of the events, because a witness tells him what he saw, or because he has a document containing news data. He says: “The reading public has the right to know which of the three possibilities corresponds to the news they read.” Pattern book From the bus. “To do this, the source will always be cited when the journalist is not present at the action he or she is reporting.”
Author Javier Casquero explains that the person who told him about the conversation did not want to appear and that is why he did not attribute the phrase. If the informant requested confidentiality, it was the editor’s duty to respect it, but in these cases the guide calls for the use of formulas that, without revealing identity, are as close as possible and none of that is included in the text. The dangerous thing is that this is not a specific case. A quick review this week of the Spanish section, where it was published, reflects that this failure is repeated in several related stories:
The new Attorney General. The name of the candidate to replace the State Attorney General was published on Tuesday at 7:18 in the news without a single reference to who revealed that the government would propose Teresa Peramatu. Until the Cabinet press conference was held, after one o’clock in the afternoon, and the text was updated with quotes from Pilar Alegría and Félix Bolaños along with the official announcement, the reader had no way of knowing the source of the information.
Report of the General Council of the Judiciary. The judiciary’s endorsement of Peramatu as the new prosecutor was also not attributed to the news published on Tuesday at 12:18. It is not possible to conclude from the text whether it was taken from the Council’s report or whether it came from sources within this body, as news agencies reported that day.
Rebuild the mapping. A report published on Wednesday reconstructs the steps taken by President Pedro Sánchez and Justice Minister Felix Bolaños in appointing Piramato. Although the text details meetings and private conversations, no sources are cited until the fourth paragraph.
“The speed with which the newspaper aims to deliver breaking news can sometimes lead to sources not being attributed from the first moment,” explains deputy editor Monica Ceberio, head of the Spanish section. “Breaking news is evolving and expanding little by little,” he adds. “But speed cannot be an excuse for not capturing all the essential elements of information from the beginning. We must be very careful to ensure that this is the case.”
The Deputy Director confirms that it is increasingly difficult in the field of political information for sources to agree to reveal their identities. He points out that “attribution is the basic element of any news, and the origin of each end of the information must always be explained to the reader, as much as we can.” “It is a basic requirement of the journalistic approach and is also required by our style book.“.
What happened does not mean poor practices by journalists in collecting information, but rather a lack of transparency in providing it. But when the same error is repeated often, the responsibility does not fall on the editors alone, but rather indicates a serial failure in the editing mechanism, which did not filter out the defects. Text review cannot focus on correcting spelling and grammar. Rather, attention must be paid to journalistic technique.
“Those of us who have read this newspaper since we were children need it to continue to be a rigorous reference,” Alberto Fernández says in his letter. “Especially at a time when the credibility of the media is threatened by polarization and the temptation of easy influence.” For this reason, this reader demands that El Pais remain a “space of trust.”
I admit that this letter particularly moved me, because it so starkly shows how credibility that has been cultivated for decades can collapse. Recently, we journalists have witnessed with some astonishment the profession being questioned in various fields, and this is where the black and white of the reader puts us where the seams fail us. For this reason, I would like this article to serve as a wake-up call to the extreme journalistic rigor of the editorial office. Every text can make or break readers’ trust; With this responsibility, every written line must support this newspaper’s commitment to truth, transparency and honesty.
To contact the defender you can write an email to him defender@elpais.es Or send an audio clip up to one minute long via WhatsApp to the number +34 649 362 138 (This phone does not answer calls.)