Mumbrella has an interview with Adam Najberg, editor of asia.WSJ.com, The Wall Street Journal’s Asian digital edition, in which he talks about the difficulties of covering a story like the missing Malaysia Airlines jet flight MH370. This is a piece aspiring journalists should read because of the lessons it offers.

Najberg crows a bit about the Journal's coverage, but more importantly he talks about how and why a paper like his can get stories that many other news outlets can't.

Boots on the ground: Najberg talks about breaking the news that the plane "was flying for four or five hours longer than originally believed. That changed the complexion of the story completely."

He adds: "This is not the sort of story we do victory laps over, but it did show that we have the boots on the ground and the contacts to get keep on top of the story as it changes."

In other words, e-mail and social media can't substitute for having reporters at the scene of a breaking news story. This is true both for hard information of the kind Najberg discusses, but also for more impressionistic things - the sights, sounds and smells of a place, whether it be a building fire or a war zone.

Najberg says the missing jet coverage also "showed the limits of some of the newer publications. Without reporters on the scene, they were reduced to putting out essays and speculative, analytical pieces that weren’t necessarily on the news."

Filtering out bad information: Najberg notes the criticism CNN has received for its nonstop coverage of the missing jet, but says the challenge all news outlets face in reporting a story like this is in separating accurate reporting from stuff that's speculative or just plain wrong.

This is especially true in the age of social media, he says, adding: "Anyone with a theory has been throwing stuff out there on Twitter. We’ve been spending a lot of time filtering out that noise."

The importance of good sources:The Daily Mail and Reuters have broken some stories on the missing jet, both through sources likely working for U.S. or U.K. intelligence, Najberg says. Good sources are a result of tireless reporting, and are key in getting stories that others don't.

The news cycle is faster than ever, but...: Najberg says the pressure to get stories out fast can't outweigh the need to get them right. "The fundamentals of covering a story won’t change," he says. "Good journalism is good journalism."

A free, vigorous press promotes accountability: Najberg talks in detail about something I've written about - the ham-handed way the Malaysian authorities initially dealt with the crisis, given the way the country's leaders were accustomed to bullying the press.

But Najberg notes that as the search for the jet dragged on, Malaysian officials were forced to adapt their methods to meet the demands of the aggressive Western media. Officials "had to back off with some the claims they were making, because journalists were demanding proof," Najberg said, adding: "They didn’t want to look backward or foolish."

Journalism students should understand that what Najberg says applies whether you're covering an international story for a large news organization like the Journal, or covering the school board for a community newspaper. The best reporting is done in person. You must separate good information from bad. You need to establish a rapport with your sources. Hold officials accountable.

And most importantly, work fast, but get your facts straight. There's absolutely no point in being first with a story that turns out to be wrong.

As Najberg puts it, good journalism is good journalism.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus