Chapter 1 — Source and the First Question Every Reporter Asks

Source was a small, alert figure. They leaned slightly forward, as if listening for a whisper no one else could hear. Source wore a vest with many pockets, the kind a real reporter might use, though theirs was a cheerful, chunky yellow. In one pocket, they kept a small stack of cards. In another, a tiny, well-worn tracker. These were Source’s tools, as important as any pen or notebook.

Source’s eyes, bright and quick, missed nothing. They watched the newsroom with the intense focus of a magpie, always comparing, always searching for the shiny truth hidden among ordinary pebbles. Source wasn’t just curious about what people said. They were deeply curious about who knew it best, and who had something to gain or lose by saying it. “Who would KNOW this best?” Source often murmured. “Who has a stake?” These two questions were the secret code to understanding any claim.

This was Source’s whole job. They taught the craft of source-quality evaluation. Most people read a news claim and just decide if it sounds true or false. They check if it matches what they already believe. But Source knew better. News-literacy craft meant taking a different first step. It meant asking two crucial questions about any piece of information. First: Who would KNOW this best? Second: Who has a STAKE in this version being believed?

An eyewitness knows what they saw. An expert understands their field. An official knows their organization’s position. An interested party knows what they want others to believe. Each kind of source offers a different piece of the puzzle. What you can trust from them depends on what they are claiming. This evaluation wasn’t about picking sides. It was about structure. The questions applied to everyone, no matter what they believed. Trusting only sources you agreed with was a trap. Dismissing sources you disagreed with was another. Good evaluation meant asking the two questions every single time. It didn’t matter if you liked the source or not. Source was the first of five news-literacy primitives in NewsForge.

Source was clear, always alert. “When a story comes across the newsroom,” they would explain, “don’t ask ‘do I agree with this?’ first. Ask: WHO would know this best? Is it an eyewitness, an expert in the relevant field, an official with direct access, or someone with a clear interest? And WHO has a stake in this version being believed? Is it financial, political, or about their reputation? Apply both questions to every source, every claim. It doesn’t matter which side you lean toward. That’s source-evaluation: structural, not partisan.”

Source taught others how to use these ideas. They showed them the two questions. They explained the different source-types: Eyewitness, expert, official, interested-party, random-internet, and aggregator. Each type had a different level of reliability for different kinds of claims. Source taught how to match the source-type to the claim-type. If someone claimed “the sky is falling,” you’d want an eyewitness to describe what they saw. You’d want an expert to explain what it means. An official might tell you their organization’s position. For an interested-party, you’d listen, but with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Source’s small, worn set of cards helped. Each card had a symbol for a source-type. Source would compare three to five sources for any important claim. They’d look at what each source said. Then they’d track what stake each source had. Source always reminded everyone: a stake doesn’t mean someone is lying. Interested parties can still know things. You just have to adjust how much you trust their specific claim. Anonymous sources needed backup. One anonymous claim wasn’t enough. You needed a second, independent source to confirm it. This whole process was structural, never partisan. It was about finding the truth, not about winning an argument.

Source grew up along the gathering-tree-perches, a place where magpies had nested for generations. Their family had always been “long-source-comparers.” They were magpies whose careful comparison of found objects, and their sharp alertness to fakes, had taught them a deep truth. “The eye that compares sources,” their elders used to say, “sees what the partisan eye misses.” Source carried that lesson forward.

When Source was twelve, they walked into the main newsroom. Scoop, the senior editor and their mentor, looked up. “What is source-evaluation?” Scoop asked. Source didn’t hesitate. “Who would KNOW this best?” they replied. “Who has a stake? It’s a two-questions craft.” Scoop nodded slowly. “You are appointed,” they said.

Now, in Source’s own workshop, the source-card-comparison-set was neatly arranged. “Watch,” Source said to a small group of new recruits. A breaking story flashed across the screen: “New Town Hall Clock Tower is Leaning Dangerously!”

Source picked up their cards. “First, the claim,” they said. “A lean. Dangerous.” They clicked on the first piece of information. It was a shaky video, posted by someone named ‘LocalWatcher99.’ The video showed the clock tower from a distance. It did look slightly off-kilter.

“Okay,” Source said, holding up the ‘Eyewitness’ card. “LocalWatcher99 saw something. They are an eyewitness to the visual. But what’s their stake? Maybe they just like drama. Or maybe they genuinely worry.” Source marked a small note on their tracker next to ‘LocalWatcher99.’

Next, an article from the Town Gazette. It quoted a structural engineer, Dr. Aris Thorne. Dr. Thorne said, “The slight tilt is within acceptable safety margins for a building of this age.”

Source held up the ‘Expert’ card. “Dr. Thorne is an expert. They know about building structures. Their knowledge is deep here. Their stake? Professional reputation, maybe. They want to be accurate.” Source added Dr. Thorne to the tracker.

Then came a statement from the Mayor’s office. It read: “The Town Hall Clock Tower is completely safe. We have conducted all necessary inspections.”

Source held up the ‘Official’ card. “The Mayor’s office is an official source. They know the city’s position and inspection records. Their stake? Political reputation, certainly. They don’t want panic or bad press.” Source noted this on the tracker.

Finally, a post on a local online forum. ‘ConcernedCitizen’ wrote: “My cousin works for the company that built the tower. They told him it was always wobbly!”

Source held up the ‘Random-Internet’ card, then the ‘Interested-Party’ card. “This is a tricky one,” Source explained. “‘ConcernedCitizen’ is random internet. Their ‘cousin’ might be an interested party, or just a rumor. This source is far removed from the actual event. Their stake is unclear, maybe just wanting attention. We’d need to verify this cousin’s story, if we could even find them.”

Source laid out the cards. “See?” they said. “Four sources. Each says something different, or gives a different angle. The eyewitness saw a lean. The expert says it’s safe. The official says it’s safe. The internet poster claims a wobble. We don’t just pick the one we like. We compare.”

“LocalWatcher99 saw what happened visually. Dr. Thorne knows what it means structurally. The Mayor’s office knows their organization’s position. ‘ConcernedCitizen’ is mostly noise without more proof.” Source pointed to the cards. “We match the source-type to the claim-type. We look at who knows what best for this specific claim.”

“The expert and the official both say it’s safe, even with the lean,” Source continued. “Their stakes are different, but their core message aligns on safety. The eyewitness saw a lean, but didn’t say it was unsafe. The internet claim is too vague and unverified.” Source tapped the tracker. “That’s source-evaluation. Structural. Same questions for every side. It helps us see the full picture, not just the loudest voice.”

“I am Source,” they told the recruits. “The primitive I teach is source-quality evaluation. The move is two questions. Match source-type to claim-type. And always remember: structural, not partisan.”

Source was gentle, but their message was firm. “Don’t filter by agreement,” they said. “Filter by knowledge and stake. Every side. Every time.”

“Who would KNOW this best? Who has a stake?”

---