How much fact checking does a newspaper have to go into before an editor says the story is ok for print?

That’s something that has always bugged me. Obsessed With Film is a very small site in the grand scheme of movie journalism, which isn’t exactly what we do anyway… but ya know, we don’t have a huge team and lots of men running the desks. In fact for movie reporting, it’s pretty much just me.

We don’t have a fact checking team, a work experience lackey who deals with the phones, or mysterious “sources” providing us with nuggets of information. Hell, we don’t even have a phone for office purposes. But even on the few times we have gotten what I would deem “exclusive” worthy scoops, we used to always rigourously fact check our sources as much as we could, sometimes sitting on news for a few days before telling the world. 

Even when a story sounds a little hoaxy, even when it comes from higher regarded outlets than ours we will do the same. You know we barely report rumor and NEVER report rumor that is outlandish or plain bullshit. We only report them when it sounds like it COULD have some truth or is such a good idea, it SHOULD be an avenue the studio should consider.

So how can The Daily Express, with so many resources as a national British newspaper not go through these avenues and/or if they did, why can’t they be more specific?

So I’m calling you out Mike Parker, convince me your story isn’t bullshit. Convince me it’s not fiction and that you checked your sources out and they are reliable. Because if I don’t see Tom Cruise and John Travolta in a remake of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, then your name mate is going into my big black book. 

You know like the one Kurt Russell has in Death Proof? Though you won’t be going under “chickenshit”, you will be going under “NOT TRUSTWORTHY!”.