A recent enjoyable email exchange with a reporter I once supervised included this from him: “OK, maybe we don’t miss the inevitable entreaties to ‘make just one more phone call,’ but we do miss most everything else you brought to the newsroom.”
I do especially value the reporter who, without being prodded, makes that “one more phone call.” But I also realize that if any reporter actually required entreaties that were “inevitable,” I did a poor job of helping him or her frame the story.
I almost always resisted my editors’ efforts to guide what I wrote. Part of my attitude was immaturity – who wants to have his work follow a blueprint handed down by someone else, no matter how experienced or wise? – but part of it was my wish to have a story reflect who I am, not who my editor was.
I know, I know, I sound like some egotistical artist who cannot accept anyone’s help, advice or rules. I also know that journalism, unlike such arts as painting, music, poetry or the writing of fiction, requires a devotion to facts.
So when I became an editor and a coach (and later, a combination editor-coach), I tried to instill in reporters a set of general expectations within which they could express themselves as individuals rather than as editor-pleasers determined to finish each story and head home confident that they wouldn’t have to put up with my tracking them down with “entreaties to ‘make just one more phone call.’”
Here are a few tactics reporters should adopt to ward off editors’ intrusions:
Scratch the itch: As you’re listening to a debate in a government meeting, something tells you the course of action being considered violates some ordinance, law, charter or constitution. But no one raises that issue.
Take the trouble to look up documents that spell out or restrict what a government can do.
“But,” you reason, “the government (be it city council, county commissioners or state legislature) has lawyers who advise the decision makers, and surely the lawyers would point out the error.”
Don’t be so sure. Government lawyers are neither infallible nor immune to political pressure. Your editor probably will have the same question that made you wonder, so checking and explaining might prevent a bounced-back story.
Push the source: A former colleague wrote a story about a man in the prime of a successful career who suffered a devastating injury, leaving him a quadriplegic. The reporter included an interview with the man’s wife, who described her new, unexpected and difficult role of constant caregiver.
All of us would wonder: Will the wife stick with the man for another 25 or 30 years? None of us would be comfortable asking that question. But when the reporter did, the wife acknowledged that the future was uncertain, and although her answer was colored with hope and love, it also was realistic and no doubt painful for both her and her husband.
Get to the point: You’re convinced an anecdotal lead fits the story you’re working on, but when you write the lead you love, you realize you then need to contort five (or more) paragraphs to get back to revealing the story’s central conflict.
Many editors will either rewrite the top or, if there is time – and there often isn’t – instruct you to do so. If an anecdotal lead requires that much explanation, it is a reach. And a hard-news lead, while not as satisfying to your artistic side, almost never is wrong.
Be creative: This is a follow-up: Stop thinking that the lead sentence is the only place to show off your individuality. Find ways to weave into your stories a vivid description of a scene, an enticing slice of history, a source’s quotation that is not only relevant but also thought-provoking, original, amusing or unexpectedly emotional.
Analyze: Show your editor (and thus, your readers) that you’re thinking ahead, that the hard news means something more than just what happened that day. Maybe an isolated traffic accident is part of a pattern no one else noticed, or a public official’s latest proposal is based on some significant experience in his or her life, or a school district’s policy revision might lead to bigger problems than the one the revision is designed to solve.
Rehearse: Before your fingers hit the keys, tell your editor the story. If he or she wants more questions asked, you can find that out before laboring over the writing, then being asked to revise. You also can explain why you think you don’t need the extra call. Remember, no editor’s “entreat(y)” has to be “inevitable.”
THE FINAL WORD: In one of William Safire’s compilations of his language columns, he highlighted the verb “obnubilate,” which means “to make unclear, indistinct, vague, etc.,” something we journalists do when we’re too lazy or too busy to fully explain.
(I used to say, “I fuzzed that up,” but now I can say it more eruditely.)
Capturing the essence of a person through writing isn’t a simple task.
Survey: More Americans see less media bias — but why?
Gene Policinski
Inside the First Amendment
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org. Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
Attention, you so-called “enemies of the people” and alleged purveyors of biased reporting: There’s reason to think fewer people than last year might see you that way, despite the ongoing, politicized attacks from multiple quarters on the news media’s credibility.
President Donald Trump hurled that “enemies” epithet at journalists some time ago, and continues to complain about biased news coverage nearly every time there are news accounts about contacts with Russian officials by his administration.
But such criticism comes with varying levels of vitriol from a variety of quarters, and started long before Trump took office. Often, the harshest criticism of the news media comes just as much from those who consume news as from those who make it. This year, however, there are signs that the public’s disdain for the press has somewhat abated.
The 2017 “State of the First Amendment” survey, released over the July 4 holiday by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute in partnership with the Fors Marsh Group, found that:
There are some likely reasons for this shift: A significant amount of TV, online and print journalism has shifted from the softer “horse race” focus of the 2016 election to this year’s focus on hard news and complex issues.
And — with more than a bit of irony — as more Americans are inclined only to consume news from sources that line up with their individual perspectives, there’s a likely parallel increase in the “trust factor” in those sources, even if they resemble echo chambers more than truth-tellers.
Among those who believe that news media tries to report unbiased information, most expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views (60.7 percent). Those more critical of media efforts to report news without bias were also less prone to report a preference for news aligned with their own views (49.1 percent).
So, no celebratory back flips in the nation’s newsrooms, please, especially since the uptick only puts the “bias” figure roughly back to levels seen in 2013 and 2014 (46 percent and 41 percent, respectively).
Those inclined to support the work of today’s journalists hope that the drop in those who perceive press bias generally stems from that combination of dramatically increased visibility of news operations and their reporting on serious news, such as health care reform and investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 election.
For my part, I believe that more people saw reporting of real news, not fluffy “click-bait” features and dramatic but mostly meaningless polling reports, and it earned back some of their lost approval and trust. Here’s an idea for journalists nationwide: Keep trying hard news, accountability reporting on issues that — while not necessarily “sexy” — matter the most to people and their communities, such as jobs, health care, education, and local and state government.
For years, news industry moguls and newsroom leaders have sought ways to reverse their dwindling income, which has led to fewer newsrooms resources and less real journalism, and which in turn has prompted additional loss of consumers. Clearly, mushy stories about the travails of celebrities, feel-good stories, and valuing tweets over investigative reporting are not working out that well. Acting on that realization will mean putting an emphasis on innovation and finding new ways to report on subjects that, in themselves, don’t necessarily draw in a new generation of readers.
But therein is the opportunity for those who will be the news media success stories of the 21st century. This year’s survey results show that the opportunity is there, that news consumers are hungry for imaginative reporting on issues that directly impact their lives.
But we can still take comfort in the 20 percent drop in those who presume journalists are incapable of reporting without bias: Attitudes can change, and trust can be regained.
Editor’s Note: A version of this column appeared earlier on the Newseum Institute website as part of the 2017 State of the First Amendment report.