How to Avoid Synthesizing Fool’s Gold

By: McKenzie Somers, September 16, 2019

Everyone knows that the stories that get the most attention are the most wild, juiciest, and seemingly out of this world stories that everyone is talking about. I like to call them “Fool’s Gold”. Though they may present some sort of factual truth and they evoke a lot of emotion, they are ultimately only there to make people think that they are reading something revolutionary, when in reality, they are being fooled. They seem like good stories, but they are NOT examples of good journalism. So, how do you avoid making these “Fool’s Gold” type stories? Bob Wyss, author of “Covering the Environment: How Journalists Work the Green Beat,” lays out a nice list of what and what not to do while reporting and writing news stories. They are coined “Wyss’s Tenets of Good Journalism”(Wyss 2019).

• ACCURACY

Without proper attribution, quotes, and factual evidence, your article is just Fool’s Gold. But be aware, factual articles can still lead to controversial conclusions and debate (Wyss 2019).

• THOROUGHNESS

Be thorough! Investigate ALL angles. You can’t leave out opposing information. If your goal is to expose somebody or something, you have to let them defend themselves (Wyss 2019).

• BALANCE

You need to understand the science behind what you are reporting on. Reporting about controversial breakthroughs is always great, but make sure you have YOUR facts right before going against accepted conclusions (Wyss 2019).

• FAIRNESS

Make sure your sources know what the purpose of your story is. Ask demanding but fair questions. Don’t try to trick your sources. Don’t hype up meaningless facts, focus on the details that add to your story (Wyss 2019).

• TRANSPARENCY

It is easy to be a transparent journalist now that readers have access to social media, blogs, and biographies, however, be sure to explain to your readers why you are writing and reporting these types of stories (Wyss 2019).

• PASSION

As the most important tenet, in order to write a good story, you need to be passionate about what you are doing in the first place. As a journalist, you can make a difference, as an environmental journalist, you can change the world (Wyss 2019).

Fool’s Gold in the Real World: What did they do wrong?

Bill Moyers

Moyers narrated and investigated for “Trade Secrets” which is a documentary that works to expose the chemical industry for knowingly endangering people and the environment. He hit all of the tenets of good journalism, however, he failed to be THOROUGH. He did not interview any of the industry officials to include their viewpoints. This completely shifted the point of his story. Rather than questioning the chemical industry, people began to question his ethics.

John Stossel

Stossel was once very well known for being an advocate for the environment, however, this quickly changed when he thought that his stories tended to be overly alarmist. He tried to compensate by reporting from the complete opposite end of the spectrum, calling environmentalists radicals and even preachers of doom and gloom. He claimed that they brainwashed schools into becoming environmental boot camps. (Book Citation) Stossel failed in FAIRNESS and ACCURACY. He was criticized for his method of interviewing school children, grilling them with difficult questions and repeating them until he got the answer he wanted. He even blatantly lied about organic produce being more harmful than regular produce, claiming that organic and non-organic produce both had no signs of pesticide residue, even though he only tested the produce for bacteria.

David Wallace-Wells

Wallace-Wells wrote an article titled “The Uninhabitable Earth.” The subtitle: “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak- sooner than you think.” He was criticized by scientists for being too radical when they often criticized journalists for being too conservative. Wallace-Wells failed in ACCURACY and BALANCE. He was writing about actual issues that were discussed in scientific literature, however, he took it too far and expanded the issue a great deal. His extraordinary claims were not backed by extraordinary evidence. Wallace-Wells lacked balance because he obviously didn’t fully understand the science of what he was reporting. He went against the accepted conclusions of climate change without real evidence to back this up.

John Hawkins (Hawkins 2014)

It is important to note that this article is outdated, however, we can still analyze what the big issues are. Hawkins is not very THOROUGH at all in this article. He is selectively reporting by using one quote to dispute claims of climate change that are backed by hundreds of studies. He does this multiple times throughout his article. Hawkins is also severely lacking ACCURACY. Looking into his sources, he only has two credible sources. However, their comments are both used out of context. In this sense, he is also lacking BALANCE in his article. He is disputed accepted conclusions of climate change, just as Wallace-Wells did, and he is manipulating the evidence to work in his favor, rather than using real evidence to support his claim.  

Mining for Real Gold

Even though these articles are only missing the mark for a few of the tenets, some only missing one, it makes all of the difference. The key to finding real gold is to nail all of the tenets. One slip-up can turn your gold mine into a costume jewelry outlet.

Sources

Wyss B. 2019. Covering the Environment: How Journalists Work the Green Beat. 2^nd Edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Hawkins, J. 2014. 5 Scientific Reasons that Global Warming Isn’t Happening.  <https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423 > Accessed September 15, 2019.