Rules of Journalism Explore Clarion Has Broken: Nonsatiracle

ExploreClarion sounds like the name of a resource tourists use to decide where they'll go for dinner. So how the heck does an organization with this kind of name wind up reporting the deaths of car crash victims, rape victims, and people nailed for drug use? "Hey outside visitors. Welcome! Let's 'explore Clarion.' Here's some horrible things that happened today!" You really need to rethink this name EYT.

The organization that attempts to keep you informed on the region's most important topics probably prides itself on amassing 50 thousand followers on Facebook. This means 14 thousand more people than the county's population trusts ExploreClarion to inform them accurately. Unfortunately, the rules of journalism are not always followed so well.

Disclaimer: The Venango Republic can break the rules of journalism because we are comedy news. We never cite names or claim to be a fully factual source because frankly, a Blobfish as our CEO should make it obvious that we are a comically focused platform. Our disclaimers, when we provide them, involve us telling you when we are NOT being satirical. ExploreClarion however, doesn't always follow the simple rule of informing you when claims they report are speculative. Shall we demonstrate?

Back in April, the most talked about subject in town was the one most people are sick of hearing about. According to sources, a bar owner ran his mouth, said some racist stuff, and drove his staff to quit.

Did you notice how I used the phrase "according to sources" ExploreClarion? I've read the first ten paragraphs of your phone book sized coverage of this story. I don't see the phrase allegedly, according to sources, or witnesses say anywhere in the start of your article. Instead, the writer just rambles off as if witness claims are substantial evidence. It isn't until paragraph 19 that one of the key phrases is finally used.

These phrases are called attribution phrases, and they are a big deal. They don't suggest that witnesses are lying, but they do protect the organization from a defamation lawsuit. Why? Because they are crediting a source for the information and acknowledging that nothing is fully verified even if the claims are true.

As in the case of the Loomis incident, several aspects of this article break basic journalistic rules. For one thing, the only indication that the journalist tried to reach the bar owner for his side of the story is the phrase "our calls." The journalist, who we will refer to as Mr. Sea, does not document when he attempted to call, how many times, or if there were other methods used to reach the bar owner.

This is a problem because even if the claims are true, you need to show reasonable effort to get the other party's side of the story. "Calls" could mean as little as two attempts. And if the guy's phone is broken, it's understandable why he isn't returning your calls. He might have dropped it in the toilet before flushing. Even I wouldn't pull a phone out of that kind of mess. His hands may be dirty from racism, but he's not going to touch poop!

By the way. What the heck is the deal with this headline?

Really? Most people probably just said "what a jerk" and went to Toby Hill. I highly doubt all three and a half thousand residents of Clarion came outside at once and said "let's decide what we believe about racism. We can hold hands up and down Main Street and sing about how connected we are now that a guy was racist toward a jukebox." Don't you think you are exaggerating this a little bit Mr. Ocean Dweller?

The rules of journalism argue that the author must state the facts. This means no subjective opinions, no clickbait, and no exaggerations to spark community gossip. Additionally, you are to use verifiable information. The article only cites two instances of interviews yet suggests several people were in the bar that night. What about the other people?

If you are going to document a guy's racist statements as a factual event, you need more than two people. Not to mention, another rule of journalism is to seek out verifiable facts. Not social media hearsay. There is so much reference to what people said on their Facebook accounts as if that constitutes proof of the incident. It doesn't. You need more information. Like interviewing everybody who saw what happened?

I am not denying the events the witnesses claimed. In fact, I wrote several satirical pieces mocking the guy who made the comments. But as one who has prior experience in journalism, I can say without a doubt that this article by ExploreClarion breaks the rules that protect people from misinformation. Even if what you report is completely factual, you need to present it in such a way that you are protected.

What makes this dangerous? With the exception of the public apology made by the Loomis owner, all you have are two interviews for an event that suggests several people were present. You can draw from Facebook posts, but reaching out to the people posting is essential to ensure your facts align.

Here's a brief example: Explore Venango shared an article about potential abuse in the Venango County Prison. This article represents a good example of reporting in micro sized font..... Fix your font! Not everyone has eagle eyes!

Aside from it being super long, the author does not try to exaggerate or take a stance on the claims. He just reports what people told him.

The Facebook comments to this article were filled with allegations of abuse from former prisoners. Contrarily, a conversation I recently had with a staff member of the prison suggests the allegations are false. Am I picking a side? No. I'm reporting that many commented experiences of abuse, while another said otherwise. That is unbiased reporting.

The opening of the Loomis article doesn't start off this way. It doesn't say that a bar owner "allegedly" made remarks. Neither does it suggest attempts to interview multiple people to back up the claims. It cites two people and Facebook interactions from people they could have easily reached out to for interviews. Additionally, it takes 19 freaking paragraphs to get past the soap opera! I can drive 322 to Seneca behind the county's slowest driver and be done faster than it takes to read those sentences. Also..... FIX YOUR FONT!

The first 19 paragraphs report the instance as a narrative for a book. That is terrible reporting. Even though the claim of racist comments is backed by the apology posted by the owner, this approach is messy, unprofessional, and demonstrates bias. And this is not the only problem exhibited in the piece.

What drives people crazy about things like political news is how much they exaggerate instances. The only time people truly love exaggerated headlines is when it promotes an idea they agree with. But that doesn't make it good journalism. Just good propaganda.

In the case of the Loomis article, so much could have been accomplished simply by stating the basic facts. "A man allegedly made racist statements Saturday evening. Two bars closed down when the staff walked out in protest." Instead, this 90-100 paragraph article hits you with subjective sentences like "it was a town watching a mirror being held up and not looking away."

Seriously? You know this for sure Mr. Swimming Animal? You talked to all three and a half thousand people in Clarion and determined they looked at themselves in the mirror after the incident?

Let's take a quick survey. How many of you looked at your reflection and said "I wonder if I'm racist" after hearing what that bar owner said?

Eh..... Three and a half thousand people is a lot to survey. I think I'll just be like the ExploreClarion guy and claim you all did look in the mirror. It's so much easier to speculate for emotional clickbait.

Oh! Speaking of exaggerations; The claim that the woman's initial post describing the instance went viral? 1.4 thousand shares is not viral. Maybe by a small-town standard it seems to be. But I can easily get that number by dropping 20 bucks on a TikTok video. So..... Back to my point about exaggerations......

There are a lot of headlines ExploreClarion tries to make that just fall flat. The Venango Republic has made several pot shot pieces just in the last 8 months. From a fender bender, to a two-part series on a dam nobody gives a damn about. We also find it funny that more than two months after making this article, they still haven't fixed the spelling on Tylers description.

Errors include "In fact, your will" and "even wore at hat"

Also, just so you can see how little there is to explore around here, my sister from Lancaster Pennsylvania sent me this article and commented the following.....

UGH! Why can't we find stuff to do around here?!?!?!?!?!

There are general rules to follow in good journalism. What makes this platform great is that we are comedy news. That means we learn the rules and can break them when we want because everyone knows we lean towards faking information for laughs. Our disclaimers come when we are being serious.

In the case of ExploreClarion, there is a higher standard. They are not a comical platform. Therefore, their disclaimers need to come when information is based on witness accounts. When it is a case of one person's word against a series of accusations, you still are trusting those accusations are true without any basis other than the persons word.

It's easy to overlook this unprofessionalism in the Loomis incident because of the publics reaction prior to the publication. But imagine if it was a story about a person where the claims were false. That happens sometimes. And an article this messy screams defamation that could ruin an individual.

I wonder how well you'll sleep at night if ruining some poor innocent soul served as good clickbait. If it gets you to 51 thousand followers, it was worth losing the 1 I guess.

Additionally, I have never met the man who made those racist comments. Yeah, I wrote some rude satire. But the guy defamed himself and that's the nature of comedy. People expect that but don't take it serious because it's COMEDY. Explore Clarion however is not a comedy platform. Explore Clarion is supposed to be a factualy based source delivering news in a way that protects us from subjectivity. They aren't supposed to be writing soap operas.

I don't know where the Loomis guy is 8 months down the line. He could be a completely different person by now. I don't even know what kind of guy he was before. Was he drunk when he spoke? Does he just run his mouth thinking he's funny when he's not? Or is he exactly the kind of person that could do harm????? Nah! He can't even handle black music.....

You can't get these kinds of answers from the information Explore Clarion gained because they only talked to two people. Had they tried to reach the Doofis from Loomis several other ways, found success, then found him wearing a swastika, then we would have a bigger story. Unfortunately, all we know is that he apologized for being racist and some workers provided context from their point of view.

With this said, I do believe a major mistake does not mean one will not consider change in themselves. It also doesn't mean they will. I also believe that several eye witnesses to demeaning racist comments have a right to be put off by what happened. But Explore Clarion is not a blog. They identify as a news website. Meanwhile, the Venango Republic is the Bill Maher of this community. And it is calling out the BS that turned a simple "they walked out after reporting racism" into a city wide soap opera where I'm aparently questioning if I'm racist. Cut your moral police crap and just report the news ExploreClarion. Here's a list of ten rules to help figure out how to do that.

Top 10 Rules of Good Journalism

1. Seek truth and report it accurately.

   Verify every fact. Never publish rumors, assumptions, or unchecked claims.

   
   

2. Use credible, independent sources.

   Rely on firsthand accounts, documents, or verifiable data — not social media hearsay.

   
   

3. Be objective and impartial.

   Avoid injecting personal opinions, bias, or emotional framing into the story.

   
   

4. Provide context, not confusion.

   Explain background information clearly so readers understand the full situation.

   
   

5. Attribute all statements.

   Always identify who said what — “according to police,” “witnesses said,” etc.

   
   

6. Correct errors transparently.

   When mistakes happen, fix them promptly and clearly note corrections.

   
   

7. Respect privacy and minimize harm.

   Avoid sensationalism, victim-blaming, or publishing private details unnecessarily.

   
   

8. Keep headlines honest.

   Titles should summarize facts — not exaggerate or manipulate emotions to get clicks.

   
   

9. Maintain independence from influence.

   Don’t let advertisers, sponsors, or personal relationships shape what you report.

   
   

10. Hold power accountable — fairly.

    Investigate wrongdoing, but give all sides a chance to respond before publishing.