“The best obtainable version of the truth.”
Carl Bernstein used this phrase in London in 2011 while discussing investigative reporting and the legacy of Watergate. Its careful modifier matters. Journalism does not promise omniscience, and it rarely begins with every document, witness, or consequence available. It works under deadlines, legal limits, human memory, and deliberate secrecy. Yet ‘obtainable’ is not an excuse for accepting the easiest account. It places a duty on reporters to pursue the strongest evidence they can reasonably reach, compare conflicting versions, and show readers why one explanation is better supported than another at the time of publication.
The standard becomes practical through reporting method. A newsroom can construct timelines, authenticate records, seek firsthand witnesses, test numerical claims, and give subjects a fair opportunity to respond. Editors can challenge gaps in causation and separate what the evidence proves from what it merely suggests. Publication should preserve that distinction in headlines, captions, and summaries rather than hiding uncertainty deep in the text. When a source requests anonymity, reporters should know the person’s access to the facts and the reason public identification would create risk. Each step increases the quality of what is obtainable instead of treating access as fixed.
Bernstein’s formulation also anticipates correction. New records may surface, witnesses may clarify their accounts, and early official numbers may change. Revising a story in response to stronger evidence does not betray the pursuit of truth; it demonstrates it. The ethical failure comes when a newsroom conceals a significant correction, protects a favored narrative, or leaves an unsupported implication intact because it has already spread. Visible update notes, links to primary material, and explanations of changed conclusions help audiences distinguish a living record from a disappearing mistake. Accountability should be built into the reporting process, not added only after a complaint.
The phrase is valuable in an era of instant certainty and synthetic content because it rejects two temptations at once. It rejects the claim that speed or confidence can substitute for verification, and it rejects the cynical idea that imperfect knowledge makes every account equally valid. Evidence can be incomplete while still supporting firmer conclusions than rumor. The journalist’s task is to improve the public record deliberately: obtain more, verify more, explain limits, and return when the picture changes. ‘Best’ is a demanding comparative judgment, while ‘obtainable’ keeps that judgment honest about the conditions under which news is made. It also asks managers to fund the time, expertise, and legal review that turn aspiration into reportable fact rather than leaving rigor to individual endurance.
The phrase was reported from Bernstein's 2011 London discussion of Watergate and investigative journalism, where he used it to describe what journalists at their best seek to produce.
Obtainable does not mean convenient. It requires active pursuit of documents, witnesses, responses, corroboration, and language that separates established facts from reasonable inference.
Digital updates and synthetic media make revision essential. Visible corrections, source transparency, and preserved context allow journalism to improve the record without pretending the first version was complete.
Explore more "Quotes of The Day"
Discover more notable quotes from influential voices across politics, science, business, technology, sports, and culture. Each quote offers insight into how ideas, beliefs, and decisions shape the world around us.