Tom Goldstein, Journalism and Truth: Strange Bedfellows, (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 2007), 207 pages, paperback, $24.95.Review by Lurene KelleyAsk journalists what originally drew them profession and somewhere in answer you will hear battle cry, to find truth. In Journalism and Truth: Strange Bedfellows, Tom Goldstein strikes at heart of every idealist by systematically revealing hypocrisy or misguided faith placed behind most conventional journalistic techniques.Journalism and Truth takes a multidisciplinary approach examining how news practitioners and educators might enhance journalistic epistemology. It borrows practices and research techniques from history, law, psychology and hard sciences search for better ways seek the chapter two, Goldstein questions whether conventional methods of journalism are conducive truth knowing and telling. He does this by comparing journalistic fact-gathering techniques those methodologies practiced by other information-driven professionals: experiments performed by scientists, test batteries run by psychologists and weather models used by meteorologists, name a few.Goldstein contrasts these methods with some of most common tools used by journalists-eyewitness accounts (which are often flawed), anecdotal evidence and official documents written by fallible human beings. Aside from recently developed and far from widely adapted practices of precision which takes its cues from social sciences, methodologies journalists use establish truth can appear shoddy.Few incidents illustrate this fact more than trial of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and her faulty reporting of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. During trial, Miller and a host of other high-level journalists were forced testify their often sloppy news gathering techniques. Goldstein uses actions of this Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter throughout book underscore how commonly accepted news gathering practices lead anything but truth.In his attempt establish superior ways of gathering and disseminating truthful information, Goldstein admits that journalists should not be held same standards as scientists, who often use extensive field observation witness a phenomenon as it occurs. Journalists are rarely eyewitnesses issues and events they are covering. The nature of field often requires reconstruction of an incident determine how or why it happened. From this perspective, judicial and law enforcement fields most closely represent challenges journalists face.Goldstein, director of Mass Communications Program at U.C. Berkley, developed his multidisciplinary approach through his education in both law and journalism. After graduating from law school, Goldstein became a legal reporter for The New York Times. Logically, he draws most heavily upon legal field as a means inform journalistic practices. Although he finds tools of judicial inquiry, as opposed those of journalism, more suitable pursuit of truth, he admits that even judicial methods are fallible; furthermore, many of these techniques are extraordinarily time consuming and impractical for deadline-driven pressures of daily news gathering.While there are some similarities between legal and journalistic professions, Goldstein also notes that there are many tools police officers and attorneys use that journalists cannot. Journalists, for example, cannot compel a witness speak by threat of arrest, nor can journalists offer immunity in exchange for information.Goldstein argues, however, that reporters still have a great deal learn from legal realm and argues that instead of just sticking notion of confirmation from two independent sources as a magical formula for truth, journalists should develop higher standards for fact finding. …