Opinion: News coverage relies on questions – and answers

Sometimes, it’s because the event or the person I’m reading about is so “out-there” that I am stumped. And sometimes, it’s because, as a journalist, I am forced to wonder, “What were they thinking?”

Such was the case with recent coverage of the “sextuplets that weren’t” right here in Missouri. Any time news from our home state pops up on the national radar (a la Yahoo News or CNN.com, I’m compelled to check it out. This time, I almost wish I hadn’t.

In a nutshell: Kris and Sarah Everson, a Grain Valley couple, solicited help from community organizations following the “birth” of sextuplets. People came to their aid, offering cash and gifts to help the quickly growing family. The Independence Examiner covered the sextuplets’ story. But as it turns out, there are no babies. The Eversons contrived the scheme in an effort to get help with financial woes.

The Associated Press considered picking up the story of the babies’ supposed birth, but shelved it, citing some holes in the Eversons’ story. Good for AP.

Since then, the Eversons have been charged with one count each of stealing by deceit, which is a felony offense. The couple raked in about $4,000 in a bank fund. They also had a post office box to receive gifts and an online PayPal account to solicit money via a Web site that has since been shut down.

Following the discovery of the hoax, Dale Brendel, executive editor of The Examiner, published a front-page column in which he noted that the paper was, simply put, “fooled.” He noted that the paper held the story for three weeks before being convinced it was true, but that the paper shouldn’t have published the piece until it was verified with The Examiner’s own cameras.

He’s absolutely right, and his mention of cameras sheds light on the biggest hole that I noticed in following the story. Most times, when a family has multiple babies, they’ll share photos. The Eversons’ reason for not doing so was for the security of their babies. And the only photos that were published were of what looked like ultrasound images, and the couple in their home with newborn diapers and what looks like a full nursery.

There were never any baby pictures, which seemed odd.

They also never would say what hospital the babies were staying at, and doctors wouldn’t confirm. In this day and age of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that the doctors didn’t talk wasn’t much of a surprise. But the whole “explanation” that there were people in the family who would harm the babies, et cetera, et cetera, just didn’t fit.

Which brings me, finally, to my point.

Journalists are supposed to ask questions, and keep asking them until they’re as sure as they can possibly, humanly be that the facts they’re presenting are, in fact, the facts.

Very often, in our pursuit of the news, we meet sources who, when asked what they deem to be sensitive questions, will say something to the effect of “I just don’t think that needs to be in the story.” Sometimes, this sort of response comes after questions related to revenues. Lots of companies choose not to make their numbers public. That’s their right. But we, as an editorial staff, are duty-bound to ask, ask and ask again in an effort to get the information, because regardless of whether our sources may agree with us, that information is important to any story about any business.

When we have to, we’ll put into stories that a source declined to provide information of one type or another. We don’t do that to fill space, but to show that we fulfilled our responsibility of asking the appropriate questions. We ask a lot of questions, too, not because we want to waste people’s time or because we’ve “targeted” a source or business, but because we want to cover all of our bases and get as much information as possible for an accurate, comprehensive story.

That’s what we – and any reputable publication – are supposed to do.

I’m betting that the folks at The Examiner wish now that they’d done a little more digging, even if it meant holding the story another week. Perhaps then, they’d have discovered that this wasn’t the first time Sarah Everson faked a pregnancy – only with her ex-husband, she said she carried nine babies instead of six. And they would have known that some community organizations – in that same community, no less – were ready to step in to help. My guess is that if someone had dug a little deeper, SOMEONE there might have recalled a similar report of a multiple pregnancy involving a lady named Sarah.

Everyone makes mistakes. I’ve poked fun at some of the past “whoops!” moments at SBJ in previous columns. But that doesn’t mean we like them, and it doesn’t mean we don’t try to learn from them and move on. And if experience has taught us anything, it’s that questions, and lots of them, are the order of the day when it comes to accurate news reporting.

To our sources, I only have this to say: When we call, whether it’s one time, two, or more, be patient. If we have questions, answer them – honestly – and don’t take offense if your answers generate a new line of questions. We want to report the news accurately and without bias – and that’s good for everyone.

Maria Hoover is SBJ Focus editor.[[In-content Ad]]