Their information is assumed reliable and their analysis is given great weight.
journalists should seek out expertise in the realms of NGOs, academia, professional associations, and elsewhere. But they must be careful not to cross certain lines.
many news services quote highly respected groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders and other NGOs on issues of human rights, casualty figures and international law, among other things.
Reports and statements are treated as factual, even if the methodology behind is flawed, context is omitted, or conflicts of interest are swept under the rug.
Hallo effect = they can't be wrong......🤔 wrong they can are more often than not are
And if it says “scientists say” or other non-specific group, not really a good sign.
Addressing the relationship between the media and the humanitarian organizations, Philip Gourevitch questioned why reporters don’t treat the NGOs with a heavy dose of skepticism.
"Why should we not regard them as interested parties in the public realms in which they operate, as giant bureaucracies, as public trusts, with long records of getting it wrong with catastrophic consequences, as well as getting it right?"