ChicagoEye, via Flickr (CC License)

Anyone can think more like a reporter, without necessarily having to look like one!

A community journalism project is, by definition, a collective venture. To truly succeed, knowledge gained by some has to find its way across to the whole group.

That’s why we, the founders of Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker, want to share with you some of our perspective about journalistic practice, along with guidelines for contributors to this group effort.

Over time, with your help, we hope to improve and expand on these key points, and add more.

Read on, and please share your own thoughts and questions…

1. THINK INDEPENDENTLY

Be open to diverse views — both about the topics you choose to cover and about your mindset in covering them. It’s OK to shape the story according to your own understanding (rather than someone else’s), but don’t simply try to influence the process by pushing your agenda.

Example: You interview someone whose perspective you might not normally share, but you listen carefully for what makes sense, and question what doesn’t. If possible, check that perspective against someone else’s.

2. BE CLEAR ABOUT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU’RE COMING FROM

It’s all right to have thoughts of your own about a story you’re covering, and even appropriate at times to express your fact-based views in your story. After all, that’s what the journalists who write newspaper editorial pages do — assemble facts and shape them into opinions.

It’s also okay, for this project, to be involved in the issues or organizations you’re writing about, or to be associated with people or organizations who play a role in the issue or who have an agenda. We all live connected to a community of one kind of another.

However, we require that, in your stories and in your contributor profile for this site, you clearly spell out your connections or viewpoints that could be construed as influencing what you say here. That allows readers and community members to judge for themselves the context in which they wish to consider your contributions to this public discussion.

Example: You’ve spoken at a City Council meeting in the past disagreeing with a the Boulder City Council on zoning issues. Now you’ve got to cover that same council at another meeting. Just let your readers know that you’ve had a history of public disagreement with the council.

OR: You work for a company that offers energy-efficiency services in Boulder. Make that clear in your profile, and mention it in any posts that you think the community would find that association to be crucial context.

3. CHECK YOUR FACTS AND CITE YOUR SOURCES

Accuracy starts with you, the contributor. No matter how good our editorial backup system, unless we can rely on a factual starting point, the end product will inevitably be flawed. It’s a kind of honor system, and reporters who play fast and loose eventually get found out. That’s not fun for anyone.

For this site, we require that all contributors must cite a source for any significant facts mentioned. If possible, create a live hyperlink to that source. (We can show you how to do this.)

We prefer that you cite a primary source wherever possible — that would be a document, or an interview you’ve conducted, or other first-hand information. Note that a newspaper story or other media account are not primary sources — in the news business, they’re called “secondary sources.” Newspapers get things wrong too, so always double-check facts or verify quotes wherever possible.

If a primary source cannot be tracked down, it’s OK here to cite a secondary source (such a s report by a news organization or blogger you have good reason to trust). However, we do require that you mention for all such citations that you have not independently verified that information.

Always ask yourself:

• How do I know a piece of information, no matter how mundane?
• How many different sources, and different types of sources, can verify that info?
• Who gave me which information, and how strong are their qualifications?
• What might my source have to gain from presenting a distorted point of view?

Example: A source tells you something that seems beyond their expertise or purview. Maybe a local business owner is complaining about a motion before city council. Rather than just run the secondhand information and interpretation, check that information out with someone who knows the topic more directly, or a relevant document or web site from the primary source (such as the agendas and minutes for recent city council meetings).

OR: You come across a piece of information presented as fact several times; ask yourself if it’s just one source being repeated in different places.

If you draft up a story that cites secondary sources, Amy Gahran and I (the editors of this site) will push you to verify that information with primary sources. Often this is easier than you think, and even fun. For instance, calling someone quoted in a newspaper article and asking them whether that quote was correct, and if there’s anything they’d like to add, can yield excellent original material for your story.

4. STAY CIVIL, CONSTRUCTIVE, AND ON-TOPIC

There’s a lot to say about Boulder’s carbon tax and climate action plan. Many people have strong views on this issue. It’s fine for your posts here to indicate your passion. However everything posted to this site (including comments) must be civil and constructive. There will be no name-calling, insults, flame wars, or other kinds of destructive discourse here.

We reserve the right to edit or delete posts or comments that we deem uncivil, mean-spirited, potentially libelous, or otherwise damaging to the public discourse.

It’s also important to stay on-topic. This site is about Boulder’s municipal carbon tax, how the city is spending that money, what we’re getting for that money (including effects on Boulder residents, businesses, and organizations), and how well Boulder is progressing toward meeting its emission-reduction goals.

This range of topics has obvious connections to many other topics, not the least of which is climate change in general. However, we do require that every post here offers significant and direct relevance to Boulder’s climate change efforts. If your post doesn’t make that connection clear, we’ll work with you to make that evident.

5. DISTINGUISH OPINION FROM FACT

As mentioned above, this site welcomes contributions of opinion and commentary as well as factual reporting and analysis. However, we require that you list (and cite sources for) relevant facts to support your opinion.

Also, we require that you signal all statements of opinion or belief with language such as “I think,” “in my opinion,” or “from my perspective.”

6. BE COMPLETE, OVER TIME

Journalism has famously been described as the “first rough draft of history.” That means, to a certain extent, that journalists (professional or amateur) generally deal with partial information that may need to be published quickly — and then fleshed out with the next story, and the one after that.

That constraint doesn’t give us license to ignore the larger context or the need for fairness. Never lose sight of the big picture, even under time pressure.

Example: A partisan accuses a rival of being less than honest. Fairness demands that you seek out the rival for a response, preferably before publishing the accusation. Completeness demands we note when that partisan had made similar accusations in the past that turned out to be unfounded.

Also, say you get information from a source that answers some questions, but raises new ones. It’s fine to post about this — to describe what you’ve learned, and to mention that you’re pursuing a further line of inquiry. Just make sure you “close those loops” with follow-up posts.

7. ASK FOR, AND ACCEPT, FEEDBACK

Public discussion is the core of this project. Therefore, always keep an open mind about — and an eye out for — sources or views that can help you do your job better. This input can come from experts, existing or new sources, your editors, fellow contributors, family, friends, neighbors — anyone, really.

One benefit of the Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker is that people can comment on your stories. You can encourage comments by including open questions in your stories, or otherwise soliciting feedback.

Civil disagreement is a very good and powerful thing. If someone criticizes your work, even harshly or wrongly, step back and try to understand your critic’s perspective. There’s probably something worthwhile you can learn. Engaging your critics in civil public discourse can be an extremely fulfilling experience for everyone.

Example: You’ve written about an expert analysis that goes beyond your own knowledge and aren’t sure your sources have helped you get all there is on the document. Go ahead and share what you know, but also post a direct link to the analysis itself and ask readers and other contributors if they see something more, or different, than you did.

...What do you think of these guidelines? Anything to add? Any questions? Please comment below!

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 8th, 2007 at 9:07 pm and is filed under About this project, Journalism skills, Volunteer. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.