The journalism profession operates on one key foundation: trust with the audience. If the audience doesn’t believe the words journalists write, the photos they publish or the facts they gather, all their effort is for naught. Finding and reporting the truth is what separates journalism from the hucksters, liars and rumormongers.

And the details do matter. After all, if the audience can’t trust you with the small stuff, how can they trust you to get the bigger things right? Accuracy with names, dates, places and spellings is an essential part of forming that solid foundation upon which that crucial trust and credibility are built. Learning the value of accuracy and cultivating practices to ensure its fruition in every story should be paramount in every publication lab. Yet these ideals sometimes remain unmet even in the professional world.

Take the story last week about ABC News investigative correspondent Brian Ross. Ross reported that Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, was prepared to testify—as part of his plea deal with the FBI—that then-candidate Trump instructed him to make contact with the Russians in 2016.

Ross included that claim based on his conversation with one confidential source close to Flynn. After the story aired, Ross was forced to correct that statement to note that only after elected did Trump instruct Flynn to contact the Russians for the purpose of repairing relations in order to better combat ISIS. Ross was suspended for four weeks and has been barred from covering stories about the president.

That seemingly simple misreport had real consequences. At a time when those who see any coverage that opposes their own viewpoints or worldview as “fake news,” this type of error could add more unnecessary fuel to such claims. Some could even use it to attempt to discredit truthful reporting in the future. To others, it’s just further evidence that journalists either fabricate stories outright or at least rush to judgment if the story fits one of their supposed preconceived agendas (in this case, to discredit the president).

Ross’s reporting hinged on a confidential source. This is the perfect opportunity to remind students about policies and guidelines about confidential sources. Denying readers the transparency provided by naming sources should only be done in the most extreme circumstances. The story must be of utmost public interest to garner confidentiality. It’s essential to have a procedure in place for who makes the decision to grant confidentiality and under what circumstances such requests should approved.

This is also the time to double down on teaching the basics of accuracy checklists at all phases of the reporting process. This means attending to the small details—like getting a person’s job title correct—but it also means ensuring you’ve consulted enough sources with sufficient knowledge and expertise to paint an accurate picture with words, photos or video. After all, five clueless sources with no firsthand knowledge really can’t lead the audience to a deeper understanding of the nuances of any given topic.

Students can learn a great deal from the missteps of their professional counterparts. This situation can be a reminder of the importance of getting it right and giving readers a truthful rendering of events.