Bulletproofing Your Story�
Nils Hanson, Swedish Television (SVT)
How to avoid this?�
… and this?�
The answer�
Three checkpoints
… with a counterweight
First checkpoint: Is it worth investing in?�
The most important question
The mission: Kill the story!
How soon can we contact ”the other side?”
Make up a plan for demanding accountability
Advantages early contact
Second checkpoint – are we on the right track?�
Discuss quality issues
You can tell true facts – without telling the truth�
How to make sure we include all relevant facts?
Delicate questions
Question the experts
Question the experts
what the expert is saying?
Are the sources�trustworthy?
Background
Have we done�the necessary�background checks?
Treatment of the victim
Are the relevant critical
questions asked?
Discuss quality issues
Are we fair?
The judicial system
The accused person must
be given access to evidence
to prepare the case in court
The editorial system – too often
The accused person gets
minimum of information
at a very late stage
”He destroys people”
”Theatre director
pressed actor
to abortion
for a role”
The Press Council: �He only got four hours to answer
Interview and response to criticism
– not the same thing
We have a ”no surprise policy”
Three steps – to secure response
If an interview is denied:
2. Inform about all criticism and ask for comments – with strict deadline
In most cases:
3. Send excerpts of the manuscipt – with strict deadline for response
Exclude quotes and details that can lead to sources
Why inform about the wording ?
Reasons to wait until later
Dealing with dangerous people
More tips on dealing with dangerous people
gijn.org
Third checkpoint – are we accurate and fair?�
“Line by line”
– the investigative reporter’s survival kit
Line by line at Mission Investigate
Very complicated issues
Is there any doubt?
– pro bono
Reporter´s preparation
Start with the central questions
All facts must be verified
… even the seemingly harmless ones�
Leon, 21, died at treatment center
The mother Nancy told our reporter:
”I called the treatment center six times”
After checking the telephone log
”The day Leon was found dead Nancy
had called the treatment center five times”
Lessons learned
1. Watch out for overstatements
– we tend to exaggerate
Be precise with numbers
”Many people are affected” (an opinion)
”12 people are affected” (a fact)
2. Avoid unnecessary burden of proof
Compare:
”The employer neglected the safety rules”
(You must prove they did it deliberately)
”The employer did not follow the safety rules” �(You are stating a fact)
3. Statements from victims
– are not true until they are proven
Compare
”He remembers nothing” (Hard to verify)
”He says he remembers nothing” (A fact he is saying it)
Compare
”The police didn´t do anything to help her” (Hard to verify)
”She says the police didn´t do anything to help her” (A fact she is saying it)
4. Don´t rely on other media
– they are probably wrong
900
5. Not only ”line by line”
– also “frame by frame”
The last question
Anything that still bothers the reporter or the editor?
Now the reporter can sleep well
If it still goes wrong�- the editor is responsible
If it still goes wrong�- the editor is responsible
Line by line – ”light”�
1. Facts – verify everything!
2. Conclusions – examine the grounds!
3. Allegations – check the response!
To sum up – why use this method?�
… and you will not end up as the bad guy
Contact:
nissehanson@gmail.com