When it comes to interviewing reporter candidates, many editors want to see examples of so-called enterprise reporting.
I just finished serving as a judge for several reporting and writing categories for the Washington Newspaper Publishing Association, and I can tell you that the winners across the board took an enterprising approach to their work.
So what is that mystical form of journalism that can make or break one’s future job or award prospects?
I’ve heard several definitions: A story that wouldn’t have been done if the reporter had never been born; a story where the reporter zigged while everyone else zagged; a story that everyone wondered about but that was never dug into.; a story that teaches the reader something.
The bottom line is that enterprise reporting is mainly about going beyond the obvious. Like most important things in journalism, curiosity, originality and hard work all play critical roles.
Here is a glance at some forms of enterprise that may spur you to try something new.
Investigations. This is the highest level work we can do. Uncovering wrongdoing, holding the powerful accountable for their actions, supporting the underdog, highlighting inequality, providing potential solutions – all noble efforts.
Explanatory reporting. These pieces break down complex topics into manageable bits that are then organized into a meaningful narrative to help readers make sense of the world around them. Typically, they answer questions like why, how much, what does it mean, who is affected, what are the unintentional outcomes, why does something matter and to whom?
Profiles. Somewhat of a lost art in newspapers, powerful profiles are now done mostly in magazines but shouldn’t be considered out of reach for any writer. Well-rounded profiles create a window into the world of the powerful, the powerless, the outlandish or even the mundane among us. Keep an eye out for “targeted profiles” in which a newsmaker pops up quickly and deserves a deeper look told concisely and with timeliness. Be sure to meet people where they live, get outsider views of the subject, and use stories within the story and strong details to bring a subject to life.
Survey story. These stories require talking to a wide range of people on a single topic, then synthesizing their reactions into a cohesive narrative.
Trend piece. Editors (and readers) love trend pieces. By examining a new or oozing topic from both a micro and macro perspective, the writer can develop a level of authority and provide context that will help readers understand what’s new, what’s hot, what’s no longer hot, what’s troublesome, what’s fascinating, and then tell them why that is true. Be sure to never overstate and remember the “To be sure…” paragraph that quickly indicates to the reader that there may be one or several other sides to the issue in order to provide a sense of balance, but which essentially informs them you’re only breaking off one piece at this time.
Case study. This is an offshoot of the trend piece in which the writer uses one example, examined in depth, to provide compelling evidence that the trend exists. These are great follow-ups to trend pieces or can be a segment within a trend piece that is evidentiary in nature. They can be about a person, an event, an industry – anything that shines a focus on an example that proves a thesis.
First-person. Rarely used, but often effective and entertaining. There’s nothing wrong with occasionally doing something, trying something, experiencing something yourself and writing about it from the “I” perspective. These can be both hard-hitting or fun.
Day-in-the-life. A derivative of the case study, this story form requires patience to be with someone or something for one entire day in order to bring readers into close proximity of what life is like over a 24-hour (or 8- or 12-hour period.) Can be highly personal and impactful.
Q and A. This technique allows a reader to share in the interaction between a proxy (the reporter) and a subject in a direct and meaningful way. Be sure to ask at least one or two “make-them-squirm” questions. This is best when done with someone highly provocative or outspoken or who has been thrust into the news either by their own volition or by events outside their control.
Tick-tock. This is a blow-by-blow version of one crazy day or event from the viewpoint of either one person or many people. This requires deep sourcing and interviewing but can lead to electric storytelling that hooks and holds readers. Great for looking back at breaking news events, tragedies or triumphs.
Narrative. A high-level form of storytelling, this in-depth feature format has the classic elements of fiction: a central character, plot, conflict, setting, theme, expository writing, rising action, resolution, epilogue.
All of these enterprise categories require more forethought, more hustle and more work than typical daily coverage, but the work is more invigorating and readers will thank you.
information, said Monday it is exploring the sale of its newspaper properties in 22 states.
At the Supreme Court, a day of infamy for religious freedom
June 21, 2018
At the Supreme Court, a day of infamy for religious freedom
By Charles C. Haynes
June 26, 2018 will be long remembered as a day of infamy for religious freedom in America. On that date, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s order restricting entry into the United States for nationals of seven countries, five of which have majority Muslim populations.
The 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii is nothing less than a proclamation that hostility toward Islam and discrimination against Muslims is now the official policy of the United States of America.
If this sounds too harsh, consider that earlier this term this same Court invalidated a ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because of perceived hostility by two commissioners toward the Christian faith of a Colorado baker (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
Just weeks later, the Court tells us that overwhelming evidence of government hostility toward Muslims and Islam should be ignored in the name of protecting “national security” and upholding presidential powers. In other words, hostility by the government towards Christians is a violation of the First Amendment, but hostility by the government towards Muslims is not.
Granted, the Trump administration did everything possible to make Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 palatable to the justices by cleaning up some of the more egregious flaws of the first two versions that were soundly rejected by lower courts. But the core purpose of the ban was never “national security,” but rather a ham-handed, transparent effort by Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
If Trump was really focused on national security, his administration would have addressed any “inadequacies and risks” in the vetting system long before now. Instead, the administration has continued to push for a ban – any ban – so the president could declare victory. It matters not to Trump and his advisors that the current Muslim ban adversely affects millions of people, including countless families and individuals, many of whom are American citizens.
“National security” is the fig leaf Trump has used to implement his anti-Muslim policy. Everyone with ears to hear the president’s anti-Muslim rhetoric knows that this is true. In an administration filled with people who have a history of animus toward Islam – starting with National Security Advisor John Bolton – this is not surprising. What is astounding is that five Supreme Court justices have decided to ignore the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s intention to discriminate against Islam and Muslims.
Let’s be very clear: under the First Amendment, the President of the United States may not favor one religion over another. As Justice Sotomayor explains in the opening lines of her blistering dissent: “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”
What remains of religious freedom in America – especially for religious minorities – if the government supported by the Supreme Court can “sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security,” to quote Justice Sotomayor?
Surely this is the Dred Scott decision of First Amendment law. And like that decision, we can only hope that Trump v. Hawaii will one day be overturned and discarded on the dustbin of history where it so justly belongs.
Charles C. Haynes is founding director of the Religious Freedom Center. Contact him via email at chaynes@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @cchaynes3.