|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the|
News "according to" <foo>
I appreciate many articles are synthesis, but use of "according to <foo>" should be actively discouraged. Right now, I've found one lead article with at least two uses; another, with this in-use in the actual lead text.
I'd suggest contributors make every effort to avoid implying readers should look elsewhere for story information. I'd also like to canvas on whether or not mention of other news sources on our main page should be forbidden unless the news source is an aspect of the story (Eg, the Mohammed cartoons). --Brian McNeil / talk 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I largely agree. If a news organization broke a story through its own effort, and other organizations have not independently verified it, then they deserve all credit, and main page mention is our stylistic choice. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not what I meant at all. Think about it, you're describing something that's single source. I'm talking about only mentioning a 'competitor' on the front page when they're a primary focus of the story; eg, News of the Screws found guilty of phone hacking. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- IG's point, however, is exactly where this gets difficult. Sometimes, only one source contains one aspect of a story - and it's not unknown to see the big wire agencies citing each other. International-aimed sources often cite local newspapers in their coverage. By-and-large, we should avoid these; but, when only one paper is claiming something one must tread cautiously. As an example: "Authorities, including police and the Crown Prosecution Service, have collectively refused to identify the man charged today with war crimes, but al-Jazeera report it is former Prime Minister Tony Blair." Blair chosen as an example because when it comes to war he has no reputation left to damage. Sue me, Tony. Now, I'd be aprehensive about publishing that as "Tony Blair charged with war crimes". Had I got, say, Al-Jaz, the Beeb, the Eye and Xinhua all sitting before me saying that, although officials refused to confirm, it was indeed Bliar going before a Magistrates' Court then I'd be much more content.
- Another point is where a particular source has performed investigative journalism, such as the Torygraph's work on MP's expenses. It is not unreasonable to have a line reading "...first exposed when..." Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)