How do you handle conflicting information provided by different interview subjects in your article?

Even if one does not find conflicting accounts, they should always try to ascertain the facts from the ground up and form their own perspective, to check for contradictions, fallacies etc. This is important to verify the accounts properly from a observers stand point who may or may not have as much knowledge about the matter. Taking information from independent sources, self observation and then comparing all accounts as probable but varied perspectives will help in producing an unbiased and transparent article.

Temos que agir naturalmente com as conflitos existentes sempre observando o ponto de vista de quem está fazendo a crítica. mas a maioria das pessoas só criticam e n?o exp?em alternativas viáveis para solucionar os problemas existentes. as críticas servem para fazer uma reflex?o dos problemas existentes mas também só ser?o válidas se vier com as solu??es caso contrário você só é mais um pessoa que se "acha" o dono (a) da verdade.

In my line of working, which is in Spiritual experiences, and different spiritual practices, it's important to understand the background of the individual. What are their standard practices, and how do they measure up to the more well known understanding of that particular spiritual practice. Then it's important to differentiate between their perceived experience with their physical experiences. That alone could lead to a lot of confusion about what happened physically and what was perceived to be happening to the person. Lot's of research could potentially go into this type of interview to understand the type of interview you are about have.

Journal articles are for the purpose of presenting all the facts and interpretations of those facts so readers are informed about the various opinions and conclusions. Give the readers the factual information and allow them to choose how they use the variety of interpretations and conclusions.

Conflicting narratives can be a journalist's worst nightmare but also a golden opportunity to showcase investigative skills. Corroborate claims with multiple sources, cross-reference data, and employ expert analysis. Transparency is key. Avoid simplistic black-and-white portrayals. Delve deeper into the 'why' behind conflicting statements. Are there underlying motivations, biases, or perspectives at play? Explore different angles and present a comprehensive picture. Honesty about conflicting information builds credibility. Clearly outline discrepancies, explain your verification process, and offer balanced viewpoints. Let readers decide. Avoid sensationalism and prioritize accuracy.

This technique is often seen in investigative journalism. As a journalist, you will likely encounter multiple accounts or versions of an incident. If giving credence to one side seems challenging, presenting both sides to your audience is a reasonable approach. However, in my opinion, you should strive to inform the audience if one (or more) version is eventually corroborated by evidence.

Unless you are writing an opinion piece, your opinion must not come into play. One of the most vital skills I have honed in my years of newspaper journalism is the ability to step back and present both sides of the story particularly when it involves conflicting information. This doesn’t mean your story has to be bland, but fact checking, never assuming and always seeking comment to back up your report must underscore our work.

In my experience transparency is the most important thing to keep in mind. If you are honest, then the rest of the interview will fall into place. Also, if you're honest during your interview it is easier to tell if the company would be a good fit for you and if you'd be a good fit for that company.