[MUSIC] Imagine that you're a news reporter and you received word of a massive fire at a nearby factory. You raced to the scene and see firefighters getting the blaze under control. So many questions need answering. What caused the fire? Was it arson? An accident? Was anyone injured or killed? What's the extent of the property damage? Yet, when you pose these questions to witnesses and local officials, no one will talk to you. “No comment,” is all you hear. In that case, you don't have much of a story. Only unanswered questions. Sources, people who provide reporters with information, are crucial in news reporting. Sources provide evidence. In the best of cases, eye witness direct evidence. Sources explain what they saw, what they heard, what they smelled, what they know. Expert sources explain complex topics and give insight into the significance and ramifications of new developments. Simply put, a new story is only as good as its sources. Case in point: In 2013, the New York Post newspaper identified on its front page two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing. The Post relied on a social media discussion rather than law enforcement authorities, and the two so-called bag men, featured on the cover were innocent. Everybody lost because The Post relied on uninformed sources. The young men misidentified as suspects settled a defamation suit against The Post for an undisclosed amount, but they are forever associated with a terrorist attack. A second example. In 2002 and 2003 New York Times reporter Judith Miller reported that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Miss Miller's reporting helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. During the war, the Americans found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Miss Miller had relied on a circle of Iraqi defectors and exiles who favored regime change in Iraq, and misled journalists in an effort to achieve their own ends. As these cautionary examples demonstrate, sources matter. Weak or misleading sources led to misleading stories. Ones with negative consequences. On the other hand, stories with strong sources can alert, divert, and connect consumers in powerful and meaningful ways. Journalists should be able to tell a reliable source from an unreliable one. That doesn't always happen. Because of time pressures or a lack of professionalism, reporters make mistakes. The next video is one of the most important components of this course. It will provide you with common sense tools that will enable you to evaluate the sources in a story and, by extension, help you determine whether the information in that story is reliable and actionable. [MUSIC]