Talk about words that can be confused easily … creditable and credible are a prime example. While they sound alike, and their meanings come close, they are two completely separate terms with definitions that deserve clarity.
Creditable: Deserving of often limited praise or commendation
Credible: Capable of being believed; plausible
You can see the subtle differences in these definitions.
Creditable is a word which lends itself to use in a piece which commends someone for something they have done which is worthy of recognition. Breaking it down, it means “able to receive credit” for something the person has accomplished. However, it is wise to use caution when employing this word, as it has an aspect to it which implies a limited praise. If someone is said to have done a creditable job on a project, it means that they have done what was required of them…and maybe nothing more than that.
Credible, on the other hand, is a word which means that a response given by someone, or a fact reported, is believable and probably true. Sometimes, in a drama review, for instance, it is used to commend an actor or a director for having come close to the intention of the playwright. Or an orchestra can be said to have done a credible job of attaining what the composer intended. In the world of journalism, the journalist’s report can be said to be credible if the facts are correct and the details of the story have correctly identified the pertinent information required.
Both of these words have come into play in the past couple of years when reports of plagiarism or flawed reporting have been identified in the work of journalists. In some cases, the journalist has lifted a story from another source without giving credit for it. Or the journalist has reported a story as if he or she was present and participated in the gathering of the details, when actually the journalist has never left the comfort of his or her computer space. The story has been fabricated based upon speculation rather than actual witness accounts.
Both words can apply:
- The story is not creditable to the lazy journalist because he or she didn’t do the foot work necessary to gather the data…or didn’t give credit to those who did.
- The story is not credible because the facts are second or third person, not having been checked out on the scene by the person writing the piece.
The advent of sophisticated, computerized techniques for data-gathering has clouded these issues to some degree. I suspect there will be some recognition of new methods of journalism emerging which are not as rigid when it comes to fact-gathering. But the basic intent is still in play: a reader should be able to assume that the information in an article is authentic, has integrity, and is appropriately identified as to its source.
Over the past few weeks there have been a number of pieces appearing in the media about the impact of social media on news reporting. Given the access to instant reporting tools, anybody can show themselves to be a “reporter” … and the veracity or integrity of the report is unable to be determined. Rumor and innuendo are rampant. It has become a joke for someone to say that “they heard it on the Internet.” That statement calls for an immediate reduction in credibility.
This emerging phenomenon creates issues which affect the whole spectrum of journalism and the very nature of news. One of the criticisms of the print media … newspapers to be specific … is that it is too slow in reporting stories. But the upside of that fact is that by the very nature of the newspaper process there is time (and intention) to check stories, edit them, and build into them the factors which enhance credibility and give creditable recognition to the writers. That, in itself, is a sufficient argument for the continuation of the newspaper industry.
Photo Credit: Google
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }