A Note on Our Sourcing

By Andrew Grossman | Friday, March 1, 2002

How do you judge the veracity of a claim? That is a question that reporters, including our own, wrestle with every day. When a newspaper decides that its reportage ought to encompass more than just press releases and public discussions, issues of sourcing jump to the fore of an editor's concerns. Of late, hints of a new campus alcohol policy (see Matthew Tokson's article on page six) have driven me and the other editors to think more than we ever have before about our sources. In light of the attacks on our reporting by the Student Assembly, several deans, and members of various College committees, it is all the more valuable to shine a little more light on how we find and use information. Obviously, we found our source to be credible, but this way readers can make their own judgments about our reporting in this case.

Executive editor Matthew Tokson contacted me on Thursday night; he had gotten a lead and already begun writing. Matthew had really just stumbled on the story, but that happens: watchful eyes are an important asset. And he followed up on the lead hard, no less important. He emailed me the story. I read it and called him immediately. I needed to know more about his source.

Single-sourcing is the bane of any editor. Fact checking is part of the journalistic process from initial reporting (when the reporter double-checks and confirms things with a source; we're not being pedantic, we're just trying to be accurate) through editing (when sources may be contacted again and facts are checked by editors) all the way up until publishing, right before which proofreaders may flag questionable passages. All of this, however, relies on the existence of multiple sources of authority.

That's what made Matthew's article so difficult. Of course we wanted to run with it: the claim was a grave one, students would certainly be interested, and by breaking the story we would be doing a service to our readers. If it were true, the article meant that Dartmouth's Trustees had made another major decision about student life without student consultation and, really, in the face of student opposition; that social life on campus would soon change dramatically; and that Dartmouth's campus might see again the kind of student dissention that grew in the wake of Student Life Initiative's fumbled announcement.

At this college paper, we don't take such implications lightly, but how could we confirm the article's main contention, that the College's Trustees had decided upon a final alcohol policy while campus groups still labored to present their recommendations to the deans, who, in turn, would forward it on to the Trustees?

Generally, Trustees don't speak with reporters outside of prearranged interviews and don't comment on topics other than those predetermined. In fact, Trustees sign a pledge agreeing not to discuss the matters of their Board meetings with non-Trustees. While a Trustee would have been the best source, contacting one wasn't a reasonable option.

We discussed our options and found we were in a bind: we couldn't get confirmation from our ideal source, no one else on campus had any idea what we were talking about, and our source couldn't be named or even directly quoted, which, as a last resort, would at least have let our readers judge his claims for themselves.

If we were going to run the story, we would have to do some more thinking about from whom our information was coming and what he was telling us. To begin with, the story was plausible; the College and Trustees aren't exactly unknown for springing policies, fully-conceived, seemingly out of nowhere. And, it's well-known from the time of the SLI three years ago that several of the Trustees are modern-day Prohibitionists. So this new policy wasn't beyond the bounds of reason.

Well, then, what about our source? To begin with, was he in a position to know the information he claimed? We consulted organizational charts; he was, there was no question of that. Did he have any reason to act misleadingly? Given the context in which Matthew was informed, he did not; whatever our source thinks of The Dartmouth Review just couldn't have played a role. Further, he was known by Matthew to be trustworthy in other matters. So far as we could tell, the source had nothing to gain by releasing misleading information. So far as we can tell, he was motivated by the same desire that brought us to publish the article, to inform students of a policy to which they might object, a policy born in a manner contrary to community involvement.

I considered the story one final time myself. Was it consistent? Did it make sense? Did details change, or explanations grow tortuous? It passed all of these tests, and so we ran it, first online and now, in a revised form, in this issue.

In the days since the article first appeared on the Review's website, I have spoken with students on the Student Assembly and various committees, including the CCAOD, who claim that the story's main contention is untrue. Matthew has spoken with Dean Binswanger, who is quoted in the article extensively. Our original story had several errors in it. I appreciate that students and others were quick to inform us of these errors, all of which were the result of our own inference and did not come from our source. We have corrected them both online and for this version.

It's worth noting, though, that none of these errors concerned the story's main contention, and that no one has been shown me any evidence against that contention or given me any reason to doubt it.

And that's unfortunate; personally, I wish the story weren't true.

But just because all signs point towards the story's veracity doesn't mean that the Trustees alcohol policy must come to fruition. Student outrage curbed much of the radical change envisioned by Trustees in the SLI three years ago. Fraternities, which all—including several administrators to judge by their public comments—assumed were doomed, are still a popular choice among students and still serve as Dartmouth's social hub. For all the hoopla, little has changed. Student and alumni dissent sunk the SLI and may do the same for the Trustees' alcohol policy.

So, what now? Students should be protagonists in this situation. Three committees are at work creating a recommendation for Dartmouth's future alcohol policy. Whatever their own plans, the Trustees will not be able to ignore a recommendation that carries broad-based student and alumni support; now is a good time to contribute to ensuring that these recommendations really do represent student opinions and properly revise a system that is often hostile to students. Whether or not the Trustees have a prewritten policy up their sleeves, the first step towards a better alcohol policy is creating one.

Students should consider joining one of these three committees or at least attending a meeting. For now, participation is the most pragmatic course for concerned students. Whether or not that continues to remain the case depends entirely on the Trustees.

A Note on Our Sourcing

Article Tools

Related Articles