When to chase a rumor?

I think if it's a big rumor, even if only given by one source, it should be pursued at least a little bit. Don't wanna risk getting scooped.

If it's a not-so-juicy rumor, I'd only pursue it if I heard it from multiple sources.

Just a little story here, but I cover a remarkably successfull football coach who has won at least 7 of 10 games 14 years in a row. And he's won at least 8 in 13 of those seasons. Yet there's a certain faction in this small community who want him out and start rumors of his retirement all the time.

After one such rumor was left on my voicemail, I called the coach and asked if he was hanging it up. He asked me if this was the first time I heard such rumors, and I said no. He then asked why the hell I was calling him. That conversation ended with me asking him, in order to avoid such future calls, that when he does retire, after he tells his family, team and administrators, to let me know first.

Since then, I have won $100 in a bet with someone who told me he knew this was the coach's last year, because obviously, I knew it wasn't.

 

I chase rumors all the time. It's sort of what I'm paid to do. Obviously it depends on the rumor. Has to be newsworthy and pertinent to invest the time.

 

The Palin Internet rumors? As it turns out, they were worth checking into.

 

Really? From what I've seen, they were wrong.

 

Oh? they didn't reveal the true story, which palin likely was hoping not to divulge until later?

 

The true story, which is a non-story, or at least not anything near what the blogs were alleging.

Her daughter's pregnant at 17. BFD.

 

While I think the initial Palin rumors were sleazy, it's either a great coincidence that the daughter is now pregnant or there was a valid basis that rumor began circulating at all.
A boss of mine passed on a rumor of a local legislator getting a DUI, I checked with the local cops and ended up calling the legislator who said no and was really upset I asked him. We never did turn up a DUI. I asked my boss who the source of the rumor was and he wouldn't tell me. Which I thought was kind of lame.

 

Upset? WTH for? Just because you did your job and checked on something? Good for you.

 

My beef was that I wasn't given the source of the rumor. I think you should at least verify the facts and background of a rumor before investigating it otherwise we look like jerks and only spread the rumor by asking around about it.

 

Interesting question.
I and several other NY reporters (many, possibly) were getting emails about certain baseball players' use of PEDs years ago, but the dilemma was, how could we verify it? Nobody writing the emails would go on record, yet they kept sending them, and as far as I know they were impossible to trace.
We couldn't use subpoenas, obviously. I once wrote a column asking why if there was probable cause, why couldn't a locker room be raided (this idea was sparked by a DA and a Manhattan detective who worked in vice), but it was scoffed at by people in the baseball community who said it was simply based on following rumor.
But again, interesting question. We need more editors who care about how to guide these sort of dilemmas.

 

I fall along these lines. There have been reports that I could not believe were true that were. And other times mutiple sources and all indications pointing to something that is completely false.

The issue shouldn't be whether some crazy rumor should be checked out or not -- it's how much time and effort would go into proving or disproving it and what effect the checking might have.

Measuring a basketball court seems pretty easy and cut and dried. Why not?

Now, checking into message board rumors that a coach is a pedophile would be difficult and likely harmful in just asking.

One thing I hate, though, is when you have some kind of rumor and the "checking" is the reporter putting a call into the SID. Yeah, thanks, Bernstein.

 

You check out every one. Isn't this our job? The next phone call could be the one that wins you a Pulitzer.