Question for Journalists
I would like to throw open a question to any journalists (including journalism professors!) who may read this blog:
What, if anything, were you taught — in school, on the job, or both — concerning the use of the word “apparently” in a news article?
Why do I ask? Because the Los Angeles Times recently alleged that Justice Scalia had “apparently” ordered a deputy U.S. Marshal to confiscate and erase recordings of a speech of his. In this blog post, I noted that the allegation appeared unsupported, and that the story reporting that allegation failed to reveal significant facts to the contrary. It now appears clear that the allegation was false.
In a comment to my post, a friend of mine who is a former journalist said that he had been taught in journalism school never to use the term “apparently” — ever. He says that concept was reinforced at the small-town papers where he had worked, and he was surprised to see the term used at a large and supposedly prestigious paper such as the Los Angeles Times.
As a non-journalist, analyzing the question based only on common sense, I don’t know that I would forbid the use of the word entirely. If you lay out all of the relevant facts on both sides, and those facts justify the use of the word, I can see how it could be used under certain circumstances.
But I also understand why journalists would be taught to avoid the word — to ensure that lazy suppositions based on incomplete information are not falsely reported as fact. Ironically enough, that is exactly what just happened at the Times.
Would the practicing (or teaching) journalists among you please comment on this issue?
(Cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media, where there may be different comments.)
For editors, “apparently” is transparently a weasel word … we don’t like seeing it because it implies we’re reporting the appearance vs. reality.
An editor should call a reporter on it, and the reporter should have a list of reasons of things that can’t be put in the paper (off the record comments, etc.) that enhance the likelihood that what is apparent is also true.
But people do screw up, even at the L.A. Times.
Comment by tom mangan — 4/14/2004 @ 6:46 am
ranks up there with “some critics” in usage though, when the agenda drives the story.
“Some critics think ‘apparently’ is an acceptable word to use when theorizing without factual backing”
Comment by Frank G — 4/14/2004 @ 6:53 pm
I particularly like how the NY Time Nagourney is using former NY Times writer Adam “major league asshole” as a source for expert opinions in his columns now.
Comment by JD — 4/15/2004 @ 8:56 am
The use of “alleged” and “allegedly” is hammered home, particular on the blotter beat. I would say “apparently” is a way to avoid redundant use of “allegedly” and I’ve probably done that. The words in this usage can be summed up as standard anti-libel practice.
To use “apparently” in lieu of fact checking or finding a source willing to make a declarative statement, is, without doubt, wrong.
Comment by former journalist — 4/20/2004 @ 1:00 pm
I’m not sure “allegedly” is that much better. On the one hand, it gets beaten to death; I distinctly remember reading that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were “allegedly” murdered - as if to suggest there was any doubt at all that someone had murdered them. On the other, I’m hard pressed to think of a single statement a paper could print that would be libelous if it was not prefaced by “allegedly,” yet would not be if it was.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2004 @ 3:44 pm
[…] A journalist friend later told me that he had been taught in journalism school not to use the word “apparently,” ever. Times editors should have taken that advice when publishing yesterday’s story on Bush’s speech, which said: Hundreds of troops stood at attention without applauding as Bush entered, and refrained from clapping during most of the address. […]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Apparently the L.A. Times Got It Wrong Again — 6/30/2005 @ 9:09 pm