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.
We Hate “False News” Even More Than We “Hate” On Social Media
We hate false information on social media even more than “hate speech” or personal attacks, says the 2018 State of the First Amendment survey released Thursday by the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum Institute.
The same survey also found that a majority of us want the social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to do the false news takedown, not some government authority or official truth czar.
Overall, 83 percent of Americans agree that social media companies should remove false information, compared to 72 percent who agree such companies should remove “hate speech” and 68 percent who would have personal attacks taken down.
Those with a high school education or less were significantly more likely (87%) than those with a college education (77%) to agree that false information should be removed. There were no statistically significant differences among income groups.
The survey was conducted by Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company based in Arlington, Va., which speculates that those less educated may rely more heavily on social media as a source of news and therefore worry more than others about whether they are getting truthful information.
We strongly believe that social media companies should on their own initiative be monitoring and removing such objectionable content. But hold off on those free expression celebrations: When asked directly, respondents were about evenly split on whether to go a step further and empower the government to require those companies to “monitor and remove.”
In total, the survey sample included 1,009 adult respondents, with a margin of error of 3.7 percent — meaning it’s likely that if you asked another 1,009 adults the same questions, the results might go up or down by 3.7 percent.
When it comes to speech on campus, the survey showed that the public leans toward hearing from controversial speakers over cancelling invitations to speak — though support drops significantly when the speech is likely to cause violence.
Solid majorities favored going ahead with such speakers at colleges and universities even when the remarks were likely to offend some groups or individuals (55%).The nation was closely divided (51%-45%) on withdrawing an invitation if the speaker was likely to provoke “large-scale protests from students” or when the speech was supported by public funds (47%-46%). Small percentages in both cases declined to response or “didn’t know.”
Only when violence was likely to occur did 70 percent favor withdrawing an invitation to speak.
The survey found that the more we know about our First Amendment freedoms, the less likely we are to agree with placing limits on those freedoms.
But again, the warning buzzer sounds: As found consistently over the last 21 years of survey results, many of us know very little about those basic rights. According to this year’s survey, 40 percent of us cannot even name one First Amendment freedom. For the respondents who could, unprompted, name a First Amendment freedom, freedom of speech (56%) was the most commonly recalled, followed by religion (15%), press (13%), assembly (12%) and petition (2%). Two percent mistakenly guessed the right to vote, while the right to bear arms (9%) was the most common mistake.
Anything less than overwhelming support for freedom of religion and free expression brings cold comfort to those who see democracy’s base as resting on both. Even finding that about three-quarters of respondents (74%) see a role for the news media in holding government accountable, a slight uptick from last year’s 68 percent, means that around one in four of us does not see the news media as such a needed “watchdog.”
We can take heart that this year’s survey findings bend toward free expression and freedom for the press. But, we ought to be more than just concerned that a sizeable number of us seem willing to disavow those core freedoms for one reason or another — or can’t even be bothered to remember them.