Don’t assume your first source is your best source

We’ve all had at least one story that wasn’t what we wanted it to be: it didn’t have the crucial context that was needed, it was superseded by another outlet’s better coverage, people were offended by the way they were represented and so on. Whatever happened, we know we could have done better, and we’re disappointed in our own coverage.

As most journalists already know, when this happens, it’s best to retrace our steps and figure out where we went wrong, individually and as a team, so we can help ourselves not make the same mistake again.

 
When I’ve considered the flaws in stories I’ve worked on, I’ve found that many can be traced back to my not having found the proper sources. Often, journalists rely on people they have interviewed before or those they believe have expertise in a matter. While that is a good place to start, controversies, differences of opinion and nuance can sometimes be lost. When it comes to disability reporting, our normal reporting practices can more easily result in significant errors and the unintended introduction of bias, leading to a lack of trust from the communities we journalists cover. It’s not that we choose sources we know to be bad. It’s just that, too often, we choose sources we already know.

Your first source is not always your best source.

 
The source everyone is familiar with is not always your best source.

 
The source who always takes your call can be a lifesaver, but is often, at least in this context, not your best source.

 
This is not to say you shouldn’t still talk to these sources, or that someone is suspicious or less credible because they’re willing to make regular media appearances and have done so recently. But the person you know is not the most credible simply because you know them or your audience does.