June 13, 2003
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:"Good Old Fashioned Reporting"
There are are several well-known forms of compelling non-fiction narrative. For example: the noble protagonist struggling against the forces of evil; the faceless machine grinding the little people under its boot heel; the clash of two titanic egos; the young forward-looking innovator resisting the establishment; the tycoon done in by his own greed. If you can cast a story in one of these classic molds it will be a more compelling read.
One of the first things they teach you in "media training" is that every reporter who calls you for comment, especially if you are not the first interview, has already begun to form such a narrative around their subject. For instance, the evil insurance companies are making up for their bad investment ideas by overcharging doctors, or the tort bar is responsible for all the problems in our legal system. The narrative lense helps arrange the facts in a much more digestible fashion. After all, if the article read like a lab report, who would read it? Media trainers help you identify the reporter's narrative, reject the assumptions that are unfriendly to your position and change the interview subject from the "gotchas" if you happen to be in the way of the reporter's chosen underdog. Media training gives you an extremely cynical view of journalism (and yourself).
Unfortunately, In my limited experience, the media trainers have been 100% on the mark. I have been interviewed or asked for comment a dozen or so times by journalists of various stripes and found they all had their storyline mapped out prior to asking me any questions. They are looking for a villain, someone struggling against the odds, somebody being ground up in the gears of a huge bureaucracy or someone who is heading for a fall.
I keep hearing this phrase "good old-fashoned reporting", mostly in the triumphant crowing over the resignations at the New York Times. If 'GOFR' means not making up stuff, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, many critics of the Times are conflating this notion of journalistic execution with the chimera of total journalistic objectivity. Total objectivity makes for neither good copy nor efficient story production and therefore barely exists.
I noted this morning another commonplace -- the science reporters use of the impending doom finale. What a limited repetoire journalists work with!
Same here. Actually, I think you're understating the case a bit, because sometimes they have more than just a "narrative" mapped out. A reporter/freelancer (never could quite pin down which) for the Washington Post once called me and said, almost off the bat: "My thesis is that the small satellite technology revolution will pull the Metro area out of the recession" or something very close to that. "What kind of ammunition can you give me?"
Well, none. Smaller satellites meant fewer jobs, not more, only a handful of satellites were built in the Metro area anyway, and futhermore the space industry in its entirety was just a tiny blip on the economy as a whole. If I were a troublemaker, I would have added that we also weren't in a recession, because we weren't, but I didn't bother because the recession was an article of faith at the WaPo in the runup to the first election of President Clinton.
"Darn," she said, "my whole story is sinking here." I was the second or third person she'd called, and I gather we'd all said similar things. The story still ran, of course, along the lines that high techology _could_ pull the area out of recession. It was a long time ago, but I think I may have even been quoted in the article - out of context.
Although this is the most extreme example, the basic elements of the story are fairly typical of all our encounters with all the media. And that goes double for the Post. Their errors of fact (somehow mis-transcribing electronic earnings releases by millions of dollars) and bias (in the sense of foregone conclusions, as well as in the political sense) were so pervasive that we basically stopped communicating with them. I don't think they give a damn about accuracy and objectivity, and in their business reporting, at least, I know they don't. They're on a mission...
think up a quote (maybe 3) that can't be screwed with elipses (very short) that's punchy and looks great on you/org
repeat for every question:
"do you beat your wife?" A: our quarterly results will exceed expectations
what is your opinion of goatsxx.cc? revenue this year should be $3Billion
so these pictures... is that you holding the brand on your best friend? i will run for governor if there is not a superior candidate
never answer any calls from any tv company that isn't cnbc or fox news
never speak to anyone in media without notes, a tape recorded, and if possible a written, notarized agreement of the subject at hand
yeah i'm paranoid.. this is the media we're talking about
Uh, I'm not sure what people are clamoring for is total journalistic objectivity. I think they just want a leetle less slant, and bit more accuracy. It is possible, I believe, to make interesting stories which are, you know, "true", at least in the sense of being fact-based and not omitting easily-found research which contradicts the reporter's cherished notions.
Whether this is reasonable to hope for or not is another question, but it shouldn't stop us from royally hammering reporters who publish obviously-wrong information.
GOFR? Is that of the aged, yellow sort?
Comments are Closed.