Journalism Basics: Attribution, Fairness, and Avoiding Common Reporting Errors

Attribution: When You Must Name the Source

Attribution tells the reader how you know something. It protects accuracy, signals transparency, and helps readers judge credibility. A useful rule: if a statement is not directly observable, not universally known, or not documented in a reliable public record you’ve verified, it likely needs attribution.

Attribute when the information is:

• New, disputed, or consequential: allegations, claims of wrongdoing, numbers that change understanding, forecasts, promises, accusations.
• Interpretation or analysis: “This policy will reduce rents,” “The company is likely to miss targets.”
• Based on someone’s experience or perspective: “I waited three hours,” “Staff morale is low.”
• From documents you accessed: internal memos, emails, court filings, inspection reports. (Name the document and how you obtained it when relevant.)
• From data you processed: calculations, comparisons, rankings. (Attribute the dataset and method.)
• Not common knowledge to your audience: local context varies; when in doubt, attribute or briefly explain.

You can often write without attribution when the information is:

• Directly observed by you: what you saw at a meeting, what a sign said, what happened in a public hearing.
• Basic, uncontested facts: dates of scheduled events, widely known definitions, established geography.
• Verified public records that are straightforward and not interpretive (still consider citing the record if it’s central or surprising).

How to Attribute Clearly (So Readers Don’t Get Lost)

Clear attribution is specific, timely, and consistent. Readers should never have to guess who is speaking, what is known, and what is alleged.

Step-by-step: Build a clean attribution sentence

1. Name the source (person/organization/document) as precisely as possible.
2. Give relevant identifiers (title, role, relationship to the issue).
3. Use a neutral attribution verb (“said,” “wrote,” “according to,” “shows”). Avoid verbs that imply judgment (“admitted,” “boasted,” “claimed”) unless you can justify them.
4. Place attribution close to the claim, especially for controversial or technical statements.
5. Separate what you verified from what the source asserts.

Examples: clearer attribution

Attribution placement: front-load when stakes are high

For sensitive claims, put the source before the statement so readers know immediately it’s a claim, not a verified fact.

According to a lawsuit filed Monday, the former employee alleges the company withheld overtime pay.

For routine information, attribution can come after the statement without confusing readers.

The council will vote Tuesday, the city clerk’s agenda shows.

Verified Facts vs. Sourced Statements: Keep Them Visibly Separate

A common reporting error is blending what you know with what someone says. Readers should be able to distinguish:

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• Verified fact: you observed it, or you confirmed it through reliable records/data, or multiple independent confirmations.
• Sourced statement: a person or organization asserts it; it may be true, false, or uncertain.

Practical method: label your information as you draft

In your draft (or notes), mark each key sentence as one of the following:

• [OBS] Observed directly
• [DOC] Documented (name the document)
• [DATA] Data-derived (name dataset + method)
• [SRC] Source statement (who said it)
• [UNVER] Unverified (do not publish until resolved)

Then revise so the published version makes those distinctions clear through attribution and wording.

Wording that signals verification level

• Verified: “Records show…,” “The report states…,” “Video from the meeting shows…,” “The agency’s database lists…”
• Alleged/claimed: “X alleged…,” “X said without providing evidence…,” “X disputed…,” “X declined to share documents supporting the claim…”
• Uncertain/ongoing: “It is not yet clear…,” “The cause has not been determined…,” “Officials have not released…”

Mini-check: can the reader tell what’s known?

• Could a reader underline each sentence and identify the source or verification method?
• Are allegations clearly labeled as allegations?
• Have you avoided writing a source’s interpretation as if it were a fact?

Fairness Practices That Improve Accuracy (Not Just Tone)

Fairness is not “being nice.” It is representing relevant perspectives proportionally and accurately, especially when claims conflict. Fairness also reduces the risk of publishing misleading summaries.

Represent relevant perspectives (not every perspective)

Choose perspectives based on relevance and impact:

• Directly affected people (those who bear costs/benefits).
• Decision-makers (those with authority or responsibility).
• Independent expertise (when technical claims need context).
• Credible critics/supporters (when there is meaningful disagreement).

Practical step-by-step:

1. List stakeholders and what each stands to gain/lose.
2. Identify which claims are central and contested.
3. Seek responses from the parties most directly implicated by those claims.
4. Include context that helps readers evaluate each side (records, timelines, data).

Don’t stack quotes to create a false impression

“Stacking quotes” happens when you line up multiple quotes that all push the same point, making it feel more proven than it is. Instead:

• Use one strong quote to represent a viewpoint.
• Summarize additional similar comments in a sentence with attribution (and specify how many people, when, where).
• Counterbalance with verification (documents, data) rather than more quotes.

Example rewrite:

Quote stack: “It’s dangerous,” said A. “It’s unsafe,” said B. “It’s a hazard,” said C.

Cleaner: Three neighbors said they believe the intersection is unsafe. Police crash reports show 14 collisions there in the past 12 months, including two involving pedestrians.

Accurately summarize opposing positions (steelman before you critique)

Fairness requires describing the other side’s argument in terms they would recognize, then testing it with evidence.

Step-by-step: the “steelman” summary

1. Write the opposing position in one sentence without loaded words.
2. Include their strongest stated reason (not the weakest).
3. Confirm the summary with the source when possible (“Is this a fair description of your view?”).
4. Then add verified context: what supports it, what contradicts it, what’s unknown.

Example:

Opponents say the rule will raise costs for small businesses by requiring new equipment. The department says a rebate program will offset most of the cost; the rebate details have not been released.

Common Beginner Pitfalls (and How to Fix Them)

1) Anonymous sourcing without necessity

Anonymous sources can be appropriate when there is a credible risk of retaliation or harm and the information is important and otherwise unobtainable. The pitfall is using anonymity for convenience.

Fix: use a necessity test

• Why anonymity? What specific harm could occur?
• Why this source? How would they know?
• Can you get it on the record? Try additional sources, documents, or public records.
• Can you corroborate? Seek independent confirmation.
• Can you describe them meaningfully? Give readers a reason to trust without revealing identity (role, proximity, time frame).

Better anonymous attribution:

A city employee who works in the finance office and reviewed the draft budget said the department is considering a hiring freeze.

Not enough:

Sources say the city is considering a hiring freeze.

2) Overusing quotes

Quotes are for voice, specificity, and accountability—not for carrying every fact. Too many quotes can obscure what happened and reduce clarity.

Fix: quote only what earns quotation marks

• Quote: vivid phrasing, a key admission/denial, a precise claim, a moment of emotion, a line that shows stakes.
• Paraphrase: background, routine explanations, long or repetitive answers.

Practical step: for each quote, write in the margin: Why must this be a quote? If you can’t answer in one sentence, paraphrase.

3) Editorializing (sneaking opinion into news language)

Editorializing often appears as loaded adjectives, assumptions about motives, or conclusions not supported by evidence.

Fix: replace judgment with evidence

4) False balance (treating unequal evidence as equal)

Balance is not giving two sides equal space; it’s giving claims weight proportional to evidence and relevance.

Fix: balance with verification

• State what is known from records/data.
• Attribute competing claims clearly.
• Explain the strength of evidence: “No evidence was provided,” “The study was not peer-reviewed,” “The agency data covers X years.”

Example:

One group says the policy caused crime to rise, citing anecdotes. Police data shows overall reported crime fell 6% in the year after the policy took effect, though car break-ins increased.

5) Confusing correlation with causation

Just because two things change together doesn’t mean one caused the other. This error often appears in trend stories and policy coverage.

Fix: use careful language and seek mechanisms

• Use “after,” “alongside,” “during the same period” instead of “because of,” unless you can support causation.
• Ask: what is the proposed mechanism? What alternative explanations exist?
• Look for confounders: seasonality, population change, enforcement shifts, reporting changes.

Safer phrasing:

Rents rose 4% in the months after the ordinance passed, though economists said multiple factors—including interest rates and low vacancy—also affect prices.

6) Missing context (true facts that mislead)

A statement can be accurate but still misleading without time frame, baseline, comparisons, or definitions.

Fix: add the minimum context that changes meaning

• Time: compared to when?
• Scale: out of how many? per capita?
• Trend: one month vs. multi-year pattern?
• Definitions: what counts as “incident,” “affordable,” “violent crime”?
• Process: what happens next, and who decides?

Example:

The district reported 30 fights this semester, up from 20 last semester. The district said it also changed its reporting rules in August to include incidents previously logged as “disruptions.”

Pre-Edit Checklists: Accuracy, Completeness, Clarity

Accuracy checklist (line-by-line)

• Every number has a source (document, dataset, or named person) and matches the source exactly.
• Names, titles, ages, locations, and dates are verified (not assumed).
• Quotes match recordings/notes word-for-word; paraphrases match meaning.
• Attribution is placed so readers know what is fact vs. claim.
• Any allegation is labeled as allegation, and the response from the accused party is included or clearly noted as sought/declined.
• Cause-and-effect language is justified; otherwise you used correlation-safe wording.
• Links between events are supported by evidence, not sequence.
• Photos/captions (if any) match the story facts and time/place.

Completeness checklist (what a reader needs to understand)

• The story answers: what happened, who is affected, what’s at stake, what happens next.
• Key stakeholders are represented based on relevance (not simply availability).
• Opposing positions are summarized fairly and in their strongest form.
• Important context is included: baseline, time frame, definitions, and constraints.
• Any uncertainty is stated plainly (what is unknown and why).
• Documents/data used are described enough for readers to understand their limits.

Clarity checklist (reader comprehension)

• Each paragraph contains one main idea; long blocks are broken up.
• Pronouns have clear antecedents (no “they” confusion).
• Attribution is unambiguous (no “sources say” when a specific source can be named).
• Jargon is defined or replaced with plain language.
• Loaded words are replaced with observable facts or attributed characterizations.
• Quotes are trimmed to the essential phrase; the rest is paraphrased.
• Readers can distinguish verified facts from sourced statements without rereading.

Quick self-audit: highlight test

Before editing for style, do a fast pass using highlights:

• Yellow: every claim that needs attribution—confirm it has one.
• Blue: every number—confirm source, unit, and time frame.
• Pink: every sentence that implies motive, blame, or causation—confirm evidence or rewrite.