The art and science of fact checking news stories

For the last several years, mainstream news organizations like the Toronto Star have, from some corners, been bombarded by accusations of spreading fake news and disinformation.

As I’ve stated in previous columns, this makes it incumbent upon journalists now more than ever to get the facts straight. To some of you readers this may sound like an easy task in the abstract. But there are real challenges.

Sometimes the problems begin when journalists rely too heavily on experts we assume have the straight goods. This relates to a matter I dealt with recently in my role as public editor.

A Star journalist working on a news story contacted a science expert based at one of our local post-secondary institutions. The interview pertained to the recent launch of a SpaceX Starship rocket.

The expert erroneously told the reporter the new rocket engines used the fuel “methanol.” In fact, the engines used liquid methane. (Methanol is commonly used as a solvent and it can also be utilized as antifreeze for windshield washer liquid. Methane, on the other hand, is the main constituent of natural gas).

A reader spotted the error and alerted my office. We later corrected the mistake online, with a note at the bottom pointing out the flub. We also indicated that incorrect information was supplied to us. We ran a similar correction in the print edition of the Star. (A note is also now on our archived version of the story, a measure taken to ensure the error doesn’t end up in another reporter’s story in the future).

“I’ve never written about tech,” the contrite journalist said to me this week, walking me through how the mistake got into the SpaceX story. “I believed what (the expert) said. I didn’t doubt it,” the journalist went on to tell me.

This is a good lesson for reporters.

Journalists have to maintain a level of skepticism about what any expert says and must endeavour to verify details — although tight deadlines will present some challenges and a reporter may not immediately know what information is problematic.

This ties in somewhat with another reader complaint I dealt with recently, one that left me scratching my head in the end. The complaint stemmed from a news event the Star covered that quoted someone many of us would consider an expert source — a provincial cabinet minister.

In a statement late last month, Ontario’s Environment Minister David Piccini announced a proposal to create a new park in Uxbridge.

“The Ontario government is protecting southern Ontario’s green spaces by creating the province’s first urban provincial park in the township of Uxbridge,” the ministry’s press release stated, adding that the proposed park in the Oak Ridges Moraine would protect local wildlife and provide opportunities for people and families to enjoy the area’s natural beauty, including through hiking and birdwatching.

First announced in the province’s 2023 budget, the proposed urban park may include up to 532 hectares (about 1,300 acres) of provincially owned lands, the release said.

For context, the Star report noted that the announcement comes at a time the provincial government is facing intense criticism for its plans to expand development of subdivisions into Greenbelt lands that were formerly protected.

“Creating the province’s first urban provincial park in Uxbridge would be a major step forward for conservation and biodiversity protection in Ontario,” Piccini said in his statement, which the Star quoted.

“Au contraire,” Star reader Lauren said in a note to my office the next day calling out an “error on the minister’s part.”

Bronte Creek Provincial Park in Oakville is an urban provincial park, Lauren said, thus implying the one proposed for Uxbridge can’t be the first.

In fact, when I checked into this, I found that one of Ontario’s own websites plainly shows the Bronte Creek Park has long had this urban provincial park label.

“In the early 1970s, Bronte Creek was proclaimed Ontario’s first near urban park. Today Bronte is an urban provincial park,” Ontario’s Bronte Creek Provincial Park management plan from 2003 states categorically.

I reached out to Piccini’s office for some clarity here. I would describe the reply I received from Daniel Strauss, a spokesperson in the minister’s office, as somewhat perplexing.

Strauss reiterated the line from the management plan report that states Bronte is an urban provincial park. Then he went on to state that “while Bronte Creek can be considered urban, today,” it was not founded as an urban provincial park.

Bronte Creek, Strauss added, is also classified as a “recreation class Ontario park,” meaning it supports a “wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities for large numbers of people while ensuring that the core heritage values of the park will be protected for future use and enjoyment.”

He added that “at this time, Uxbridge Provincial Park, has no classification.”

Still, none of this plainly or transparently tells me why we can call the proposed park in Uxbridge “Ontario’s first urban provincial park,” as the minister did in his announcement and as his ministry’s release asserted.

And so the correction the Star published for this news story stands.

Donovan Vincent is the Star's Public Editor and based in Toronto. Reach him by email at publiced@thestar.ca or follow him on Twitter: @donovanvincent