It’s better to be late than to be wrong in journalism

In February 2018, I received a notification from an undisclosed source that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had halted an investigation involving American motorbike company Harley-Davidson for alleged evasion of import duties. The information was important. I was told the investigation was formally closed A day earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the then US President Donald Trump spoke over the phone on February 8, 2018. what made the information more reportable Mr Trump’s keen interest In issue: He had complained several times in the past about the high tariffs imposed by India on Harley-Davidson motorcycles. There were clear indications in the story that India was acting under pressure from the US to close the investigation. But mere perception was not enough. Such information had to be checked, rechecked and verified. In this case, the source was unknown, so I had to take extra precautions.

I made several attempts to contact the officials at DRI, but to no avail. The officials either expressed ignorance or denied the information. I also had documents confirming that the investigation has been closed. I wondered if they were fabricated or photoshopped. Maybe it was a case of corporate rivalry?

I decided to wait more and dig in. After more than a month, I finally met an official during a government function. I got a chance to talk to him, although I didn’t expect him to answer my questions. He not only corroborated the story, but also provided context for it.

I knew that if I waited too long, the story would go stale or it could land with our competitors. Still, I had no choice but to verify the story before printing it.

We journalists are often faced with a situation where the temptation is high to immediately publish information that we feel is important or cannot wait. No reporter wants to miss a story. But its purpose is always to give accurate information to the reader. If we are not sure, we cannot proceed with the story. Sometimes, though, it’s too important to ignore the source.

There are many examples of packets landing in newspaper offices containing confidential documents. Old fashioned journalists always verify these documents before publishing news.

Given the technological advancements, documents that seem official sometimes land in our inboxes or on WhatsApp. These may compel us to take them at face value. Such documents should always be cross-checked as many people thrive on spreading misinformation. The ‘fake’ are so sophisticated that they can almost pass off as genuine documents.

While there are government accounts on social media to investigate such claims, there have been instances where journalists have fallen for them. For example, immediately after the June 15, 2020 incident in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh, where 20 Indian soldiers killed in clash with China’s People’s Liberation Armyeditor on a television channel Read the names of the Chinese soldiers who were reportedly killed in the conflict, Till date, there is no confirmation about those names. Fact checking websites like Alt News claims rejected Then. The names aired by the channel were doing the rounds on WhatsApp and were seen by many others. Nevertheless, the channel decided to run the story. While Indian officials have unofficially claimed that several Chinese soldiers were killed in the Galwan incident, China has so far Accepted the death of only four personnel,

Journalism should not be casualties in our flurry of breaking stories. As the editors say, it’s better to be late than to be wrong.