You are browsing the archive for 2011 December.

Idea: Reporting without writing

December 7, 2011 in Academics

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about news judgement and curiosity, because I sometimes find those traits lacking in students (and professionals, for that matter). And I sometimes feel that the Journalism 101 model is broken. We spend so much time getting students to write a good lede that we neglect the basics of *reporting* the story.

So I’m going to throw this idea out there just to hear what you have to think about it. The idea is for a course that is solely about reporting, not writing. Please respond in the comments.

The key thought behind this is to teach students how to identify the value of news and how to get the right information from the right sources before even beginning to talk about ledes, inverted pyramids, or story structures.

Step 1: Begin with a discussion of news judgment: what is news? What elements of a potential story make it newsworthy? This is basic to any beginning newswriting class.

However, this is where the process might seem a bit different.

Step 2: Have students select a newsworthy topic, perhaps a topic that is currently in the news – say, Libya. Ask them why this topic is important? What are the questions surrounding the topic? Why are those questions important?

Step 3: Next, have students select another topic, perhaps a topic that is in the news on campus, or in the local area. Ask again, why is the topic important? What are the important questions related to that topic? Now, ask: where would you go to look for answers to those questions? Make a list of potential sources (people, documents, databases, etc.) For each “source,” ask: “Why is that a good source? Is there more than one source available for each question? Which source seems more “authoritative,” or should the question be asked of them all?

Step 4: Select another topic that is related to the campus: Repeat the process of Step 3, and then add another step to the process: Have students go ask those sources those questions. At this point, you can discuss notetaking, recording audio, etc. Interviewing techniques, things to observe during an interview, etc. Off-the-record, anonymous sources, etc.

Step 5: Now that students have interviewed sources and gathered source documents, go through the answers/documents. Ask: which part of this information is most important? Why? Which parts are incomplete? Are there further sources needed on some information? Are there facts that are stated that might not be “facts.” Discussions of attempts to influence, frame news, etc. are applicable at this point. Organize the facts, statements, documents that are crucial. Rank them in some sort of order. Ask students how such information should be ranked? What are some ways to organize the information?

I haven’t waded into grading or assignment particulars, but the key thing is to keep the writing out of it, to deal with what is really the most basic thing for a journalist to learn: getting the information.

What am I missing here?

UPDATE: I should clarify that I think the writing component would be heavily emphasized in a second-semester required course.

Currated Links for Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011

December 6, 2011 in Links

Wow, this semester is flying by. Here are a few of the articles I’ve come across recently that are worth a read. You can also see recommended reading in the CICM Twitter feed.

Ars Technica’s 2011 holiday gift guide extravaganza (Ars Technica): This is really a comprehensive list of geekery.

Censorship, Curse Words, and a Dodgeball Championship: Student Press Trouble at Pacific Lutheran University (College Media Matters): A really dumb action by university administrators in a censorship controversy, and a good reason to host a college website off-campus.

Dicing onions like a pro (Craft): Filed away for future reference.

The inevitable collision of journalism and everything else(Sean Blanda): “You shouldn’t be worried about pageviews, Facebook likes or what Poynter is saying about you. You should worry about the trust of your customers and the strength of your product.”

New journalism platforms call for new journalism rules (John Robinson): Yes, the rules are changing.

The art of the interview (and journalism students who don’t practice it!) (Mario Garcia): “It’s a recurring theme, and its frequency disturbs me: journalism students who ask for an interview, to which I agree, then they show a total lack of preparation with the most essential facts and details. There was never any excuse for the unprepared reporter, but, in the era of Google, the list of excuses just got shorter.” I think every journalism student should be required to read this.

LETTER OF INQUIRY TEMPLATE (Ian Bogost): As a semi-funny chaser for the above.

Tool of the Day: Cuttings.me (10,000 Words): “Enter Cuttings.me, a new service that provides journalists with a free, online platform to showcase their work. The site launched in October and was created by travel journalist Nicholas Holmes to fill the void he found when he tried to share and upload his work online.”

The aggregator’s dilemma: How do you fairly serve your readers & the sources you rely on? (Poynter): “a lot of news sites have developed strategies for aggregating but are still figuring out how to serve readers without undermining original content providers. I talked about this challenge with several aggregators and asked for their thoughts on how voice, analysis and editorial judgment factor into aggregation.”

Writing with authority: When to drop the “he said, she said” (UPIU blog): Really good explanation of a difficult concept to get across.

The Future of Computing (NYT Bits Blog): A big report by the Times that ranges across a number of topics, many touching upon journalism.

On comments

December 1, 2011 in industry news

Image representing New York Times as depicted ...

Image via CrunchBase

The news industry has entered another round of comment concerns. The New York Times just implemented a new “Trusted Commenter” system that requires a connection to your Facebook account. Gannett announced last month that they’re switching their comments system to one that uses Facebook Connect.

And the college media listserv had a recent round of e-mails about the advantages of using Facebook log-ins for comments.

There are obvious arguments for going with the FB log-in. People are less likely to be nasty, brutish or mean when their “real” names are associated with what they say in a comment section. Facebook log-ins are an easy turn-key method of authenticating user names. And the FB log-in is becoming ubiquitous. Randy Lovely, senior vice president of news & audience development, doesn’t mention Gannett’s company-wide shift in an online chat about the new system, but admits that 81 percent of adults in their area have Facebook accounts.

I certainly understand the desire to have a community of commenters who are civil and reasonable in their comments about contentious issues of the day. And I can’t imagine the amount of time it takes a site like the New York Times to wade through comments every day.

But, as I’ve written before, I really don’t agree with the push to associate “authentic” real-world identities with comments on a web site.

First, these papers are outsourcing the “quality” of their site’s community to a third-party. And there are people who have legitimate issues with the entire Facebook platform, who don’t have accounts with FB and don’t want them. My parents, for instance, don’t have Facebook accounts. Should they be required to create such accounts to comment on a news site?

The second concern is a legitimate concern some people have about connecting their IRL (In Real Life) identity with comments they make online. I don’t have to go through all the hypothetical examples that have been hashed and rehashed in this arena, but suffice to say that there can be real implications for people if they say something negative about a controversial topic. So their voices will be effectively muzzled by “authenticity.”

You may think that’s a small price to pay for ridding comments sections of obvious trolls and boors who don’t know how to be polite. I’m not so sure. And I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable risking someone’s job because of something they said in a comment section.

There is a long history of pseudonymous commentary in American life. Some of it good, some of it bad. But I always thought the point was that we suffered the bad because the same rules protected the good.

In many ways, I keep coming back to what long-time blogger Anil Dash wrote earlier this year when this topic got hot again. Cultivating an online community of commenters is work, sometimes hard work. And Facebook Connect is a cop-out. And adopting the “authentic identity” paradigm just means the trolls have won.

Enhanced by Zemanta