Is it possible for a reporter to state a premise, present facts, quote sources accurately and still come away with an article that misleads people?

In this increasingly interpretive era of journalism, such a scenario is much more than possible. It is outright likely for reporters who select facts and sources to support predetermined premises.

Back in 1991, college professor Larry Sabato wrote a book entitled “Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics.” It was an excellent book with strong insight into a serious topic.

As questions about the media and politics arose, reporters could turn to Sabato for comment. He was accessible, and his observations quickly lifted him to celebrity status. As his biography reads, “Dr. Sabato has appeared on dozens of nationally broadcast television shows, including ‘Nightline’, ‘Face the Nation’, ‘The Today Show’, ‘Good Morning America’, ‘48 Hours’, and ‘Larry King Live.’ ”

Reporters still have his name in their contact lists for occasions when certain types of stories arise. By now, Sabato has an extensive record of commentary, so much so that journalists have a general idea of what he’s going to say before they ever talk to him.

The fact that reporters might use Larry Sabato as a shortcut is hardly his fault. He’s still the same insightful guy that he was 17 years ago when he wrote “Feeding Frenzy.” What seems to have changed is the willingness of the American journalistic community to embrace pre-fabbed sourcing that reflects a previously known point of view.

The practice is rampant in college athletics.

Need a quote about the state of race in college sports? Call Richard Lapchick. Writing a story about economics and sports? Give Andrew Zimbalist a ring. Looking for some generally damning observation about big-time college athletics? David Ridpath or Richard Southall of The Drake Group will be happy to help.

The question is not whether any of the aforementioned is qualified. They are all knowledgeable in their own ways. But they all come with their agendas, none of which are necessarily reflected in the quotes and the accompanying attributions. Each is presumably telling his version of the truth, but is it really contributing to The Truth? Maybe, but maybe not.

As vexing as this practice can be for organizations that are on the receiving end of reportage, it is more forgivable than another increasingly popular trend: reporters used as sources for other reporters.

The NCAA has research that shows that reporters get most of their information from other reporters, but the practice seems more overt than ever.

An example: Last year, Brad Wolverton of The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote how tax-advantaged donations to college athletics programs might decrease contributions to academic programs. Several nights later, NBC Nightly News produced a segment questioning the propriety of tax breaks for college athletics donations – featuring Wolverton as a source.

Call me hidebound if you like, but I believe this is an atrocious practice. Whether one agreed or disagreed with Wolverton’s original article, at least he was acting as a reporter when he wrote it. Within a week, however, NBC News had altered his role from objective reporter (appropriate) to subject-matter expert (inappropriate).

Wolverton is nothing more than a reporter who wrote a story on an interesting topic. It does not make him a public-policy authority. We have become so accustomed to the notion of journalists-as-commentators, however, that we no longer really notice when they go beyond their roles.

Few modern-day publishers are bothered by such conflicts. After all, in the Chronicle-NBC example, the Chronicle’s story was implicitly praised, its reporter was cast as credible and its product was promoted on national television at no cost. What’s not to like? For the Chronicle, it was indeed the perfect commercial outcome.

For the consumer, though, it was inbred information, a regurgitation that had less value than it did in its original state. If you don’t believe the Chronicle was seduced by TV, then ask this: How many times has the Chronicle of Higher Education buttressed a story of its own by quoting a television reporter’s interpretation of the facts?

Almost everybody knows the five “W’s” of newswriting – who, what, when, where, why. The “who” part should signal all readers to ask, “Why is this person discussing this subject?”

You can apply the test to this column and dismiss my thoughts based on what you know about me as an NCAA employee. But at least think about it.

Perspective drives the direction of any journalistic piece. Those who ignore it get taken for a ride.