Make it a mantra: ‘Get one more source’

March 14, 2019

Bart Pfankuch is an investigative reporter for South Dakota News Watch, online at sdnewswatch.org. Email him at bart.pfankuch@sdnewswatch.org

I think as journalists we can all agree that there is no such thing as an “over-sourced” story.

Readers will never complain that a reporter talked to too many people, read too many reports or examined too many documents.

A well-sourced article or feature story is easy to identify.

Most, if not all, of the critical questions are answered. The range of voices is wide. The piece has details, specifics, numbers and examples that deepen understanding.

Readers feel complete after reading a highly sourced article, and journalists gain a big advantage as reporters and writers if they go
beyond the obvious or easy-to-get.

Interviewing enough people and examining enough documents allows for improved writing and storytelling. A writer can be more authoritative. A point can be made, expanded upon and extended into deeper discussions in the piece. With extensive sourcing, a story can go beyond explanation and branch into “solutions journalism” where the writer reveals what has worked elsewhere or examines options to make things better. Not all sources need to be quoted in the piece, but going deeper will always broaden your understanding of a topic.

Here are some tips and tactics to quickly expand sourcing on quick-hit daily stories, deeper weekenders and long-range projects. I urge all reporters to hustle, be thoughtful and dive into their work as early as possible so they have the idea, energy and time to improve sourcing.

Use online public records to strengthen your reporting. I recently attended a seminar called “Quick-hit Investigations” by noted investigative reporter Dee Hall at the annual Wisconsin Newspaper Association conference. The major takeaway: Learn about documents and reports that state and federal agencies maintain online and then use those — even on daily stories — to seek out a few relevant data points, facts or financial figures that will broaden the depth of your piece, allow for historical context or help prove a point.
Scour the internet for studies or research papers related to your topic. This has never been easier. Writing about wind farms, flu symptoms, pesticides, railroads, cancer, beef processing, pipelines, restaurant cleanliness, sidewalk costs, weather patterns or the lifespan of a bridge? I bet you can search online and quickly find three reports or studies on any of those topics from reputable sources. Stay away from consumer or product sites and rely more on government reports and university studies. Search a bit longer to find one directly related to your topic. Tidbits from those reports will add depth to your piece and credibility to your reporting.
Do an online clip check to see what others have written. If you find other media outlets have already tackled your topic, feel free to re- interview their sources or in a pinch quote directly from their findings. Just be sure to double check facts and fully attribute the material.
Think beyond the obvious when seeking sources to call by phone or interview in person. Talk to your editor, colleagues and anyone who will lend an ear and ask them what they want to know about a story or who they would call if they were the reporter. Spend five quiet minutes just thinking about who would be great to interview for your piece, and then make a wish list. Spend a half hour more trying to reach one or two of those people. Even if your success rate shooting for an extra primo source is only 50 percent, your work will be better for it.
On breaking news, always shoot for one more witness, bystander, emergency responder or police officer. Feel free to interview the talky person everyone else is interviewing, but keep an eye out for the shy or hovering witness who often has more to tell but isn’t seeking attention. In a neighborhood, leave business cards with “Please call me” scribbled on them in the door jams of potential witnesses who aren’t home. Get to know police and first responders to build trust so they’ll speak to you when you need it most.
Seek out expert sources. These tend to fit nicely in longer pieces on more complex topics, but there’s no harm in having a conversation with an expert on breaking news or a daily story or in advance of a meeting. Always review an expert’s credentials and history to reduce the chance you encounter a zealot. Again, university and government researchers are the best, though think tank analysts and industry experts can sometimes fill the bill.
Do this now: Take a sheet of paper, write “Get One More Source!” on it and tape it up in your cube or above your computer. Then, follow your own good advice.

Share:

Four words for ad professionals: “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

March 14, 2019

John Foust has conducted training programs for thousands of newspaper advertising professionals. Many ad departments are using his training videos to save time and get quick results from in-house training. E-mail for information: john@johnfoust.com.

I once encountered a car dealer who took advertising puffery to new levels. They publicized themselves as being number one in every conceivable category. Their general advertising theme was, “We’re number one.” Their new car slogan was, “We’re number one in new cars.” Their used car slogan was, “We’re number one in used cars.” Their service department’s slogan was, “We’re number one in service.” And of course, their logo featured their name inside a number one.

That approach must have simplified their advertising strategy meetings: “Let’s just tell everybody we’re number one in everything.”

I’m no legal expert, but I suspect that they could not have been prevented from using that exaggeration, because saying “we’re number one” is like saying “we’re the best.” It’s just too common to be taken as a serious deception.

The more important issue is in the fact that the ads had no credibility. There was no proof to back up the claims. Consumers were never presented with any reasons to believe what the dealership was saying.

I thought of that old ad campaign recently, when I saw a series of ads for another car dealership. Like the old dealership, they were marketing themselves as a preferred place to buy a car. But unlike those old ads, these claims were on solid ground, because they were supported by evidence. The ads showed long-time customers holding up fingers to represent the number of cars they had purchased from the dealership. It was an attention grabber – a simple and effective way to sell the dealership’s longevity and reputation.

Unsubstantiated claims are lazy. It takes practically no effort to write a headline like, “We’re number one” or “Best deals in town.” On the other hand, it takes some creativity to come up with the right kind of supportive evidence.

The work is worth the effort. While consumers ignore exaggerations and unsupported claims, they respond to relevant promises and offers that are backed up by evidence.

When you’re writing an ad or making a sales presentation, it might help to imagine someone sitting on the other side of the desk with arms crossed, saying, “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

There are many forms of proof – statistics, photographs, and testimonials, for example. Here’s how evidence can help:

“Our new widget is the best on the market” has no muscle. It’s better to say, “According to XYZ research, our widget has a 95 percent durability rating.

“Our paper is better than any other advertising option” is an empty statement. It’s better to write, “Let me tell you about the great results that Retailer X gained from advertising in our paper. Their sales increased by 27 percent during the first month.”

“Our customers love us” is weak. It’s more effective to say, “Here’s what our customers say about us.”

Just because we believe something doesn’t make it believable to others. There is power in proof. Make that imaginary skeptic on the other side of the desk smile and you’re on the right track.

Share:

Visual impact equals high readership

March 14, 2019

Ed Henninger is an independent newspaper consultant and the Director of Henninger Consulting. ww.henningerconsulting.com. Phone: 803-325-5252.

Do you want grab the attention of your readers with your very first page?

Of course you do! With every issue, you want your front page to have high readership. You want it to be your best-read page.

You can get that strong readership by making sure the design of the front is compelling. And the key to that compelling design is a strong visual element.

The front page (and other pages, like your sports front) requires a dominant visual that will draw readers into the page — and keep them there.

Some thoughts:

SIZE: Nothing creates impact like size. Make your lead photo (or chart, or graphic or illustration) the largest element on the page. How big? Think in terms of a quarter of the size of your news hole. “Wow, that’s big!” you might say. My response: “Yes…it is. And that’s why it has the impact we need.”

PLACEMENT: Position your lead visual near the top of your news hole, where it will be seen quickly. No, it need not fall directly below the nameplate every time, but placing the lead visual over the optical center (a bit above and left of actual center) works well for most fronts.
THE FOLD: It’s OK to place your dominant art across the fold, but try to keep most of it toward the top of the page. If some falls below the fold, that’s OK.

OTHER VISUALS: Make them no larger than about half the size of your lead art. That way, they don’t fight the lead art for attention. How many other visuals on the page? I suggest no more than one or two other pieces. Head shots here and there usually won’t draw attention from the lead element, but too many photos (especially if they’re close to the same size as the lead element) will create a hodgepodge on the page.

HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL? Should your dominant art be horizontal…or vertical? In a word..yes.

GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT: Select the best photo, edit and crop it correctly, and then place it. If it’s a sports photo, OK. Put it on your front and refer to the story inside. Look for the photo that has the strongest appeal. That’s your page 1 picture!

When it comes to the design of your front page, strive for impact by using a compelling visual. That approach is sure to create stronger readership.

Share:

On Campus Speech: Thanks, Mr. President — But No Thanks

March 14, 2019

Gene Policinski First Amendment — Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

However, regrettably, they should not. Keep reading, please.

Taking a shortcut through the First Amendment in the name of free speech is not a good idea — and that’s what Trump’s approach will be, no matter how admirable the stated goal of encouraging and protecting the rights of all in university communities to speak freely.

At first hearing, President Trump’s recent announcement of a planned presidential order to mandate free speech on college campuses might seem to be just what free expression advocates would support.

Trump’s approach is to tie freedom of speech to federal funding for universities: “If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions…Free speech. If they don’t, it will be costly. That will be signed soon,” he told the Conservative Political Action Conference annual convention.

Conservatives have long complained — in my view, with justification at some higher-ed institutions — that liberal academics have created an atmosphere where views of faculty or outside speakers from “the right” are unwelcome. In recent years, a number of high-profile, controversial speakers claiming conservative credentials have been heckled, harassed or prevented from speaking.

In 2017, conservative author Ann Coulter canceled a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, amid fears of violent student protest. At Texas Southern University, Houston, a speech by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was cancelled because of student opposition.

In announcing his initiative last weekend, Trump cited a Feb. 19 incident in which a man recruiting for a conservative group was punched by one of two men who confronted him at UC Berkeley. But even that example raises questions about how Trump’s proposed “carrot and stick” approach would work and whether it is appropriate there or elsewhere.

Neither the recruiter nor his assailant was reported to be connected to the university. The attacker was arrested, as existing law provides, regardless of where the punch was thrown. Presumably, local justice will run its course without need of a federal, campus-focused “back-up.”

How would — and should — a university be held accountable for the actions of non-university persons? How many incidents, and what kinds of incidents, must occur to rise to the level of a “free speech penalty” that will punish a campus community of thousands or tens of thousands of students? One, two, 10? Who decides and by what measure? Does a punch count 10 times more on the “penalty tally” than a shouted insult?

And what if the punch takes place on a private university campus? Do we want government bureaucrats imposing “free speech” rules on those institutions now constitutionally outside the government’s purview?

Conservatives and liberals alike would historically seem to stand together in opposing government intervention or control over such private enterprises. We ought not hysterically surrender such rights without considering what might be the next “justified” need to trample the independence of non-public colleges and universities.

Another, larger question: Just how widespread is the conflict over conservative speakers, or the entire issue of liberal versus conservative campus speech conflicts? In recent years, as the Freedom Forum Institute has gathered information, made campus visits and convened discussions nationwide, a few observations have emerged: At the vast majority of colleges and universities, speakers of all stripes come and go without objection — the larger battle is not student protest, but student distraction and disinterest regardless of subject matter.

Perhaps 50 campuses out of 4,000-plus higher-education institutions have been embroiled in controversies that directly engage free speech. Granted, in that small group, a number are high-profile or highly-respected institutions. Worrisome, but not worthy of a blanket government surveillance and review system that would be required to fairly impose such draconian penalties on entire campuses for what are likely the actions of a few.

Rather, let us say openly and clearly that colleges should be held by all of us to the high standard of being marketplaces of ideas. Make that criterion one when considering what college to attend or where to make an alumni donation.

Some would say academic freedom means the right to evaluate and exclude some ideas — to focus on the proven and accepted. However, that can quickly morph into intellectual ossification — the collegiate equivalent of what the French scholar Alexis de Tocqueville warned in the 1830s would be the greatest danger to the United States’ new and innovative commitment to free expression and democracy: The “tyranny of the majority,” in which alternative views would cease to be heard.

Let us follow principles already set out by some leaders in the academic world that decry overt or hidden censorship and disavow the false gods of safety, security and “ideas just too dangerous to be heard.”

As to the latter, yes, there are indeed dangerous ideas and inflammatory speakers with no goal other than self-promotion. But it is a futile and dangerous tactic to attempt to suppress a bad idea or arbitrarily extinguish a flame-throwing speaker — particularly in the Internet Age.

Better to propose a new idea and listen to anyone with ideas worth considering — on or off campus.

Share:

Obituaries March 2019

March 12, 2019

RHODE ISlAND

None reported

MAINE

Geraldine Griffin Overlock

VERMONT

None reported

Share:

Accepting Nominations For The New England Journalism Educator Of The Year

March 4, 2019

Each year the New England Newspaper & Press Association recognized the New England Journalism Educator of the Year. The award recognizes a professor at a university or college in our six-state region who is doing outstanding work in preparing aspiring journalists that will lead our newspaper organizations into the future. Each college in New England is entitled to submit one nomination for the award.

Last year’s winner was Kristen D. Nevious, Ph.D., Director, Franklin Pierce University in Rindge, NH.

If you work at a New England university or college and you know an outstanding journalism professor, please nominate them for this prestigious award.

Simply write a letter in support of an educator that is doing extraordinary work with journalism students. Please explain why you think your nominee merits special recognition, and feel free to provide examples or supporting material if appropriate. Also, please provide contact information for your nominee, so that we can follow-up with questions and a notification if he/she is selected.

The nominations will be judged by the board of directors of our Journalism Education Foundation of New England and the award will be presented at The New England Society of News Editors 2019 annual spring event, which will take place on May 2nd at The Boston Globe.

The NESNE Spring Awards Celebration also recognizes the very best editorial work produced in New England including Master Reporter, Master Photographer, Judith Vance Weld Brown Spirit of Journalism Award, College Newspaper of the Year, Newsroom Rising Star and College Journalist of the Year.

Please email your nomination letter for New England Journalism Educator of the Year by April 12, 2019 to: l.conway@nenpa.com.

Share:

Increasing Efficiency

February 28, 2019

Kevin Slimp technology — Kevin Slimp is director of the Institute of Newspaper Technology. Email questions to him at kevin@kevinslimp.com.

There’s a question I get asked a lot by friends, colleagues and audience members at conferences.

There are variations, but they all go something like, “How do you find time to do everything that you do?”

I usually just answer with something like, “I never sleep” or “I don’t know. I’ve always done a dozen things at once.”

You might be surprised to know I’m a procrastinator. Not about everything, but if it’s something that can be put off, there’s a good chance I will put it off. That’s been the case for the past year whenever the topic of rearranging my office came up.

Some of you know I moved my office from a tall building in West Knoxville, Tennessee to my home one year ago. I did what most people do when they move offices: I packed and moved everything as quickly as possible, not giving much thought to what would be most conducive to long-term productivity.

My workspace consisted of a desk with a 27-inch iMac, keyboard and mouse. “Not bad,” you might say. But as my workload increased, it quickly became obvious that I needed to give serious thought to ways to increase my efficiency.

Sure, I hired some more folks to help. That was the easy part. But my work requires a lot of attention from me, and if I was going to get everything done required to run three growing businesses, I had to find ways to get more done with less effort.

So, in February (2019), I took some time to give some thought to ways to increase the efficiency of my work. I’d been putting it off for a year, but it was time to put some serious effort into creating a workspace conducive to productivity.

My work is compartmentalized into several areas. I spend a lot of time writing columns and books. I also spend a lot of time overseeing the production of books by other authors. This includes going over the work done by editors and layout staff, going over their work before it is finalized on the page, as well as sometimes doing the layout of a book myself. I also spend a good bit of time creating material for webinars, conferences and marketing.

As I examined my day-to-day workflow, I realized I spent a lot of time moving back and forth from one application to another. When finalizing the pages of a book, I would go between the editor’s notes in Microsoft Word, the text in Adobe InDesign, and the graphics in Photoshop.

If I could have everything on the screen at once, I surmised, I would save a significant amount of time shifting between applications.

I also realized I was spending more time than I should waiting for things to happen on my iMac. They say time is money, and they’re right. It doesn’t take long to make up for the expense of a faster computer. With that in mind, I bought the fastest Macbook Pro available. To deal with the screen space issue, I purchased a wide-screen 33-inch monitor.

For about a week, I worked with the new Macbook, connected to the 33-inch monitor, along with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Things sped up significantly. I could get two InDesign pages side by side on the wide-screen, plus a page from Microsoft Word beside them.

It dawned on me, however, I was still losing productivity because having so many pages on one screen required me to keep them small enough to see everything at once. It worked, but I still had to put out more effort than necessary to work between documents. Sure, I could run Photoshop on the new Macbook Pro monitor, but it was too small for much of the work I was doing.

That’s when it dawned on me. I was just about to order yet another monitor when I realized I had my old iMac sitting on a desk in another room, just taking up space. I moved a second desk into my home office, directly next to the first. This allowed me to use my Macbook Pro, 33-inch monitor, and iMac all at the same time. Everything was coming together.

I began using the 33-inch monitor exclusively for InDesign pages. I could place two pages side by side and see them clearly. On the iMac, directly to the right, I installed Microsoft Word, and use that Monitor almost exclusively for looking over editor’s notes in Word, while editing the InDesign files at the same time. This also left room on the Macbook Pro screen for quick edits in Photoshop or other tasks.

Another area of my work requires me to send out email blasts on a regular basis. These go to webinar attendees, marketing contacts, and publications that carry my syndicated columns. I had used the iMac for email blasts, but I quickly became addicted to having the iMac screen available for editing work. That’s when it hit me: Why not get my old Macbook Pro out of its case and put it to use? It’s now used for email blasts, as well as other tasks that come up from time to time.

How much has my productivity increased since reconfiguring my desktop two weeks ago? I haven’t run any official tests, but I can assure you the answer is, “a lot.”

In the early 90s, when I opened my second business – an ad agency – and computers were much slower, I found myself waiting…a lot. That’s when I got the idea to set up a workspace with three computers. One was on my right, one was directly in front of me, and the third was to my left. I had a chair that would spin around, allowing me to work on one computer while waiting on the other two computers to finish their tasks.

I guess things haven’t changed that much. Sure, computers are a lot faster, but so is the demand for output. If I can increase my productivity by 30 or 40 percent simply by updating or adding hardware or software, you better believe I’m going to do it.

If you’re reading this column, there’s a good chance that you publish a newspaper. Here’s my advice: Don’t skimp on hardware and software. Updated software, more screen area, and faster computers pay for themselves in no time.

No one buys my hardware or software for me. It comes directly out of my pocket. So, when I pay for the latest version of Adobe Creative Cloud for my staff or update equipment, I do it because it more than covers the initial investment in increased efficiency.

Share:

Don’t let pursuit of ‘shiny things’ diminish reporting

February 27, 2019

Bart Pfankuch is an investigative reporter for South Dakota News Watch, online at sdnewswatch.org. Write to him at bart.pfankuch@sdnewswatch.org

All journalists can look back decades or even just a few months to see examples of the “shiny things” that distract us from our core work as information gatherers and sharers.

Journalism scholar Kim Bui recently coined the term “Shiny Things Syndrome” to describe a phenomenon in which individual journalists and the industry as a whole lose focus on their most critical function in society – reporting, writing and imparting important information – by getting distracted by the latest newsgathering or news delivery gadget or technology. The term is a takeoff from “Shiny Object Syndrome,” a psychological phenomenon which similarly refers to a loss of focus by people presented with a peripheral or distant image of something shiny, attractive or exciting but who then become less interested in the shiny
thing as they approach it.

Who hasn’t seen that in journalism? I recall when the World Wide Web first arrived on one library computer in our newsroom in Eau Claire, Wis., and it was only to be accessed for a few moments and only with permission of the editor. Later, the internet evolved into a highly useful reporting and presentation tool, only to morph into the major distraction
and time drain it has become for many journalists.

Recent examples of journalistic shiny things include 360-degree cameras (limited usefulness and not end-user friendly), the overuse of video that doesn’t advance a story (long, unedited videos often distract), the insistence on using Facebook Live shots by ill-prepared or untrained reporters (how many rocky camera shots and wind-addled audio can one viewer take?), the unending focus on social media (making news free to users is not a way to pay the bills), the tweeting and endless retweeting of someone else’s article or opinion (retweets are not endorsements of the original message, I promise!) and techno-focused storytelling with virtual reality, artificial intelligence and the frightening concept of
automated reporting.

Let me say for the record that any of those devices or delivery methods can work well and offer freshness to news reporting and presentation, but only when they advance the meaning and depth of a story. In my experience, the use and frequent misuse of those methods is often driven by chain ownership and corporate metric-watchers who need to appear cutting-edge without consideration of what’s actually happening in local newspaper offices or in the field.

Flatly stated, the use of shiny new technologies should never overtake basic reporting and storytelling as the primary function of journalists. So how does one swim against the techno tide and not lose their job?

Here are some tips for reporters and editors to stay focused on what really matters.

Think about stories holistically before and during the reporting process and thoughtfully consider ways to enhance storytelling. If video from a breaking news scene is doable, move forward on that. If a photographer will enter a confined or wide-open space, give a 360-degree camera a try. If a live camera shot imparts critical information in a timely, meaningful way, go for it. Never use technology on an important story to satisfy ego or a corporate directive; remember that readers come first.
Slow down, be patient, talk things through more and plan. Thoughtfulness, sharing ideas, playing devil’s advocate, planning coverage ahead of time, considering which new newsgathering and delivery methods are likely to work – those are proven methods for covering and presenting news in a meaningful way.
Make reporting the first point of focus in story conferences and always think about reader needs. Be sure reporters know that getting the facts (and getting them right) is more important that using new technology.
Find new ways to innovate that impart meaning and aid reader understanding without solely relying on technology. This could mean combining an old-school map with digital data points to create a useful online graphic that can flow into print, or tweeting from a scene with a photo or brief video to tell and show what’s happening.
Shiny Things warning label: Always train and practice before use. If video or animation is important to your newsroom and will work to improve storytelling, be sure that newsgatherers are trained and up to speed on how to use new technologies before they enter the field and fumble around.
Identify experts within your team, and then create opportunities for training and sharing what works, what doesn’t and how to avoid pitfalls.
Be sure to triage what works and what doesn’t. Reflect back on the use of technology and then celebrate the victories no matter how minor and quickly move on from the disasters with a lesson learned in your pocket.
Always remember that possessing an awareness of “Shiny Things Syndrome” is the first step to preventing technology from running amok and losing focus on the critical function of finding facts and telling important stories.

Share:

Student Journalism: More Needed Than Ever

February 27, 2019

In more communities today than ever, student publications are doing double-duty — reporting news of schools and surrounding communities — and doing both well.

As a nation, and for anyone who supports a free press, that dual rule is worthy of notice, honor and support. We take note of the great work being done by journalists who happen to be students as we recognize the 50th anniversary of a major student-First Amendment decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Freedom Forum Institute (FFI), the Newseum and the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) are declaring 2019 the “Year of the Student Journalist.”

As you might expect in today’s world, the life of student journalists and of the student press is not without challenge and obstacle, along with great dollops of good reporting.

As SPLC Executive Director Hadar Harris — with whom, in full disclosure, I and my FFI colleagues are coordinating this declared “Year” — recently wrote: “Student journalists play a key role in the civic life of their community. Not only do they report on important issues in the life of a school or school district, but as the number of professional journalists has dwindled, student journalists often also fill the gap in reporting on county, state and regional issues.”

“In 2014, a Pew research study found that student journalists made up 14 percent of the overall state house reporting corps. That number is certainly higher today. But student journalists and journalism education programs are under pressure. Student journalists have lesser First Amendment protections and are often subject to censorship, prior review, budget battles and other external pressures.”

For many who don’t often see student journalism, at the high school or college levels, the recollections are more likely than not to revolve around stories of “big games,” student elections or such. But in the 21st century, as newspaper circulation nationwide has continued to drop — more than 11 percent last year alone, reports document — more student journalists are reporting on stories and issues outside their school grounds or campuses.

In the past year, SPLC reports, students broke important stories about teacher misconduct (Utah), improper transfer of student athletes (Arkansas) and disciplinary charges by a state agency against an administrator (Vermont). Stories from students about teen pregnancy, drug abuse, mental illness and even how the recent partial federal government affected local businesses are now commonplace.

Sadly, school administrators censored those controversial stories in efforts not to make their schools look bad. In Texas, after students published editorials critical of the school administration, the paper was suspended and the unhappy principal banned all student editorials. In each case, the stories were reinstated, but the framework which allows for such censorship remains.

Just as we have not tolerated government control of what general news outlets can report, but hold them accountable for that reporting, we should adopt that same approach to student journalism. The Year of the Student Journalist will also highlight state-based student-led efforts to protect student press freedom and to prevent retaliation against advisers standing up for the First Amendment rights of their students. Such New Voices protections are in place in 14 states and are currently pending in eight more.

The legislation reflects changes in attitudes among our fellow citizens, according to the Freedom Forum Institute’s annual “State of the First Amendment” national survey. In 2014, the last year in which the direct question was included in the survey, 68 percent agreed that public school students should be allowed to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without the approval of school authorities, while only 27 percent disagreed. When the question was first asked in 2001, Americans were almost evenly split on the question and those who strongly disagreed with the statement dominated the response.

As we saw demonstrated most tragically in the mass shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., nearly a year ago, student journalists can compete with professionals in reporting on even such horrific news.

As one student editor told me during a podcast interview just days later, the newspaper staff was making coverage plans even as the shots were still being fired, as they huddled in a closet for safety. The thinking: It was a big story, whether a faked attack or a real one.

Such an approach to covering the news — and the quality report that staff produced days later — is a professional approach to news that would bring credit to any newsroom.

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District that neither “students (n)or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Now, with that admonition in mind, and the realization that for many of us, student journalists will bring us the news of our town, school district or more, it’s time to support these journalists and their publications.

So let’s spend 2019 doing just that — in the “Year of the Student Journalist.”

Share:

Only one deadline? Why?

February 27, 2019

You’ve done it again. Success! Every page in this week’s (or day’s) paper is in by deadline. It took some doing, but like almost every issue before it, you’ve created another miracle: cramming thousands of words and photos together into your latest newspaper. And…you’ve and done it on deadline.

Well, before you stroll from your desk brimming with pride, let’s take a closer look at the “miracle.” Every page is in, perhaps, but most of them went to prepress in the last half-day (or last hour).

So, yes, all the pages are “in,” but you’ve created a problem for those who have to turn those pages into files that can be processed and printed.

And consider the concerns of those in the newsroom who have to design, edit and clear those pages by deadline. If something is wrong on one of the pages they’re working on, then they have to take extra time to fix the problem, often having to go back to the originating editor or writer. With six or eight other pages waiting to be cleared, the pressure mounts.

So, yes, you have a “deadline.” And, yes, you may be meeting that “deadline.” But the “deadline” isn’t helping you with a steady page flow.

Here’s a solution: Page-by-page deadlines.

Why, for example, would you wait until the last hour to clear your opinion page, when the columns and letters that go on that page can be edited and headlined the day before your weekly deadline? And why wait until that last hour for the community calendar page to be cleared? Is there any reason why the weekly religion page (with its static directory of area worship services) should be among the last pages to go to prepress?

Sure, there are pages you’ll want to hold until the last hour (or last minute!). Page 1 and its jump page and the Sports front and jump come to mind. You can work on those more effectively if you’ve already cleared those pages (see previous paragraph) that can go early.

There are too many variations and too many other factors (like advertising placement and deadlines) for me to offer a set of page deadlines here — for either a weekly or daily newspaper. I’m confident, though, that you can take a look at your paper’s content and decide upon those pages that can be cleared days (or hours) before deadline.
Creating a system of staggered page deadlines offers you the opportunity to avoid the bottlenecks and hassles that accompany a “one-deadline-for-all” approach to producing your paper.

Seems to me it’s worth giving it a try.

Share:

CONNECTICUT

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MASSACHUSETTS

RHODE ISlAND

MAINE