Beyond rumors

Reputable news journals don't publish rumors. We deal with rumors, to be sure-but we don't publish them until we're sure they are fact. The hard work of reporting is all about chasing down the truckloads of tidbits that go winging by, asking probing questions of enough people so that in the mouths of multiple witnesses every word can be established, and then helping readers decide what is true and what isn't. But what if the rumor doesn't go away? What if you've heard it from 10 sources, and they all seem to agree? Well, especially then, remember the rule: You don't publish rumors. Then especially, you do the hard work of reporting, pounding the pavement and the telephone keypad until everything you print has been confirmed. Yet I've also learned through the years that distinguishing between a not-yet-proven rumor and an established fact isn't always as easy as it may seem. The problem has to do with telling the difference between smoke and fire. You know the old adage: Where there's smoke, there's fire! But does that mean a faithful reporter is obligated, at first whiff, to pass on the news of a little smoke? Or will he be charged with rumor-mongering? That has to do, I think, with the nature of the smoke-and sometimes it takes a veteran to sort out whether somebody's just blowing a little malicious smoke or if there's a serious blaze out there somewhere. Still, there are at least three instances when smoke itself should be reported. All three, by the very nature of the case, are meant to serve as alarms that caring people should look a little more deeply at what's going on.