Advancing the Story

Exclusive! the headline screamed: “U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts considering stepping down.” The story was posted around mid-day last Thursday on the gossip site Radar Online, owned by the National Enquirer. It said Roberts might step aside for personal reasons and could announce his decision at any time.

While other sites, including the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report, linked to the story, mainstream news organizations started checking. Within half an hour, Radar posted an update based on “new information” that Roberts will stay on the bench. But the site continued to insist that its original story was well-founded:

Despite considering resigning from the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts will stay on the bench, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned. As RadarOnline.com was first to report, Roberts, 55, was considering resigning from the nation’s highest court due to personal reasons. RadarOnline.com has now learned Roberts will in fact remain as Chief Justice.

That night, NBC’s Brian Williams told a black tie dinner in Washington, DC, that his network’s Justice correspondent, Pete Williams, had knocked the entire story down in about seven minutes. “Let’s just call it ‘primary sourcing,’” Williams said.

But where did the story come from in the first place? Did Radar just make it up to generate Web traffic, as some commenters on the site suggested? Not exactly. Turns out, a professor at Georgetown Law School was trying to teach his Thursday morning class something about the credibility of informants. As David Lat writes at Above The Law, Professor Peter Tague told his class they’d be hearing big news the next day from the Supreme Court about Roberts’ resignation. He also told them not to tell anyone.

“It was an exercise,” Williams said, “but in 30 minutes it had been Tweeted out of the classroom” and you know the rest. “Facts are tougher,” Williams said. “Information is easy. Facts are very tough. They’re best when they’re right. And we’ve got to get it right every day and every night.”

Is there a lesson here? I’d say there are several. 1) No story is too good to check. 2) Mainstream journalism still has standards that set it apart from (much of) the blogosphere. And 3) Primary sources beat rumors every time.

Filed under: 11. Multimedia Ethics | No Comments »

Most stories about the latest poll from the Pew Research Center focused on the growing popularity of the Internet as a news source. But the headline for me was the enduring popularity of television news, both local and network or cable. The trouble is, I’m not sure I believe it.

Sixty percent of Americans told the Pew researchers that they get news from the Web on a daily basis, making it the third most popular source and beating out both newspapers and radio. About a quarter of those surveyed say they read news on their cellphones. And the vast majority of news consumers get their information from multiple platforms every day. Only 7% rely on just one type of source.

But according to the poll, television news remains considerably more popular than news on the Internet, especially local TV news. The Pew study found that almost 80 percent of Americans get their news from a local TV station’s newscast every day; almost three-quarters said they watch network or cable news.

That’s surprising, because other surveys and ratings reports have shown a steady decline in viewership for both network and local news over the past 20 years. The Pew Center itself reported in 2008 that just over half of those surveyed reported watching local TV news daily; 40% said they watch cable news and 30% watched network news. It doesn’t seem possible that daily viewership could have almost doubled in two years, does it?

Sourced from: NewsLab

Filed under: 12. Getting Ready for the Real World | No Comments »

Mike Schuh has been covering daily news at the same station in Baltimore for 17 years, winning a Murrow and several Emmy awards along the way. His official title is general assignment reporter at WJZ-TV, but he prefers to describe himself as a storyteller. So when I asked him how young journalists can improve their writing, I wasn’t surprised when he told me a story.

“It’s kind of like a bricklayer knowing he needs to bring certain tools to the job to build a wall,” Schuh said. “He doesn’t think about, do I need a trowel…do I need a mixer, my pickle bucket? No, he just brings all that stuff and then he looks at the blueprint of a job and figures out what kind of wall am I building today.”  TV journalists, he said, need to be so certain about the tools of their craft–the shots and sound they need to do the job–that they can focus on simply telling a good story. As Schuh put it, “Once you’ve aced the mechanics of how you build a story, then you can worry about the story line and the plot, the quest, conflict and resolution, the reveal, all these other parts.”

With all the necessary elements in hand, Schuh has one simple goal when he sits down to write: “to get out of the way.”

Filed under: 05. Writing the Story | No Comments »

Reporters who want to anchor often get their first opportunity as a “fill in” when a colleague is away. Some slide right into the chair and do just fine. But others worry that something will go wrong and they won’t ever get another chance. Having the jitters about an assignment increases the odds that it won’t go well. So if you’re concerned about sitting on the set, a little preparation will improve your chances of success.

One obvious step is to take a test run in the studio before you do it for real. Get comfortable with the teleprompter, especially if you have to run it yourself. Have someone talk to you on the IFB while you’re reading. If you don’t have your own earpiece, make sure there’s one available that fits you well so it won’t pop out on the air.

Randy Tatano has some additional, excellent advice on his blog at TV News Grapevine, including this tip:

Make sure you have plenty of breaks in the first newscast. Packages and vo/sots give you a chance to regroup. Nothing is worse for a rookie anchor than to have two straight minutes of copy at the top of the newscast, because if you stumble out of the gate you’ll be a snowball going downhill.

Tatano also suggests meeting with the director before the newscast to make sure you’re both on the same page. And one last useful bit of advice: Have water on the set. “Cotton mouth is a really common problem among rookies,” he says.

If you’ve found other useful ways of preparing to anchor for the first time, please chime in with a comment.

Filed under: 10. Delivering the News, 12. Getting Ready for the Real World | No Comments »

Enterprising reporters have always looked beyond the daybook or the local newspaper for stories worth exploring. They’ve browsed bulletin boards, driven around town with their windows down and scoured the Web. And now–perhaps not surprisingly–social media are an increasingly important source of story ideas and sources.

According to a national survey, the vast majority of reporters and editors use social media when researching stories. As MediaPost reports on the study by Cision and Don Bates of George Washington University:

Among the journalists surveyed, 89% said they turn to blogs for story research, 65% to social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, and 52% to microblogging services such as Twitter. The survey also found that 61% use Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia.

But just because journalists consult these sources doesn’t mean they use what they find without checking further. In fact, 84% of those surveyed said social media sources were “slightly less” or “much less” reliable than traditional media.

Another finding that’s probably no surprise: Journalists working for online publications are considerably more likely to use social media sources than journalists working for traditional media like newspapers and magazines. The study apparently did not include broadcast journalists.

Filed under: 02. Reporting the Story | 1 Comment »

Just check out the comments section following the New York Times article on the potential layoffs announcement at ABC News.  The news division is “seeking 300 to 400 buyouts and would resort to layoffs if necessary.” Depending on the person, the development is either another sign that journalism is dying or much ado about nothing.

What I am sure of is that the announcement indicates that the more multimedia skills a journalist has, them more job security.  Take a look at a couple excerpts from ABC News President David Westin’s memo to the staff:

In newsgathering, we intend to dramatically expand our use of digital journalists. We have proven that this model works at various locations around the world. We believe we can take it much further.

In production, we will take the example set by Nightline of editorial staff who shoot and edit their own material and follow it throughout all of our programs, while recognizing that we will continue to rely upon our ENG crews and editors for most of our work.

Some of the concerns expressed about all this are quite valid –  it’s going to be harder for ABC News to do some of the things it used to, and yes, quality may very well suffer.   But what’s the alternative?  Continuing to do the same old things in the same old way is definitely not the answer.

Filed under: 01. The Multimedia Mindset, 12. Getting Ready for the Real World | No Comments »

As journalism organizations try to figure out how to make money in a Web-driven, free content world, MediaPost’s summary of new research from Nielsen offers some important information.

The topline summary suggests that pay-for-view news is going to be a tough sell as 79% of users say they would no longer access a Web site that charges them. 

However, the study also found that about 8% of people have already paid for newspaper content at some point and more than 40% say they would consider paying.  For radio news/talk, about a quarter of those surveyed say they might pay for the privilege of listening. 

Though the survey did not ask specifically about TV news, about 50% of people said they would consider paying to see “professionally produced video” (and yes, there was a separate category for theatrical movies).

But here’s the rub — the survey also indicates that “71% of global consumers say that if have to pay for online content it must be considerably better than what is currently available for free.”

The new report from Nielsen surveyed 27,000 consumers from 52 countries.

Filed under: 08. Producing for the Web, 12. Getting Ready for the Real World | 3 Comments »

Reporting with sound isn’t just a technical challenge–it can raise ethical issues as well. How do you gather sound in the field and how do you use it? How much editing is okay?

Guidelines like the RTDNA ethics code, which warns journalists not to “manipulate sound in any way that is misleading,” are a good starting point. But that general rule is open to interpretation and reasonable people may disagree.

A recent issue of News Photographer magazine quoted this sound advice from an ethics guide David Leeson developed for the Dallas Morning News:

Audio should always be presented in context. It is perfectly acceptable to edit out unwanted audio as long as the audio chosen for your story is used in proper context.

That leaves room for interpretation, of course, which isn’t such a bad thing. Maybe that’s why this set of guidelines on audio ethics from J-Source in Canada struck me as just a little too detailed in terms of what’s permissible.

It’s okay, even expected, that you will cut out ums, ers, long pauses, and other examples of verbal stalling – unless their verbal stalling is key part of the story, as in the case of a politician ducking tough questions.

It’s okay, even recommended, that you will cut out extraneous words.

In other words, it’s okay to make edits that help someone sound sharper, tighter, clearer. It’s just NEVER okay to change the meaning of what they said.

Yes, technology makes it easy to cut stuff out, but heavy internal editing can raise questions of credibility, even if your motive is simply to make someone “sound sharper, tighter, clearer.” If the person just doesn’t talk that way, isn’t it misleading to make them sound on the air as if they do? Leeson again:

In general, subjects should be presented…’as they are.’ If your subject naturally uses a lot of ‘umms’ and ahhs’ while talking then it could be inappropriate to remove them and change their natural way of speaking. Use good judgment.

“Cleaning up” bites used to be common practice in some newsrooms to save time or to make stories flow better. But these days, when the same audio is often available from lots of different sources, it’s easy for listeners to compare an edited version to the original. And that’s bound to raise questions about why stuff was taken out.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Sourced from: NewsLab

Filed under: 11. Multimedia Ethics | No Comments »

Sometimes it’s fun to poke fun ourselves and British humorist, and journalist Charlie Brooker is particularly good at it.  In the following segment, he explains how to put together the essential elements of a TV pkg.

The truth can be painful, can’t it? In doing a search for the video, I also stumbled across a couple of more serious resources on this topic that I thought were worth sharing.

So have a laugh, but then take a minute to learn a little, too!

Meeks Mixed Media How-To

E-How How-To

Filed under: 02. Reporting the Story, 05. Writing the Story, 06. Visual Storytelling | 2 Comments »

In case you haven’t seen them, here’s a link to the Radio Television Digital News Association ethical guidelines for the use of social media in gathering and disseminating news.  The Poynter’s Al Tompkins was one of the architects.

We wanted to speak to how speed and space limitations can compromise accuracy and fairness. We wanted to speak to the frictions that occur when journalists “friend” people on Facebook. We wanted to say something about how journalists are always journalists, even when they are off the clock. We also thought it was important to speak to how journalists sometimes say or post things online that they would not say or show on the air.

Additionally, we wanted to say loudly that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other such sites have a legitimate place in the distribution and collection of news and information, but that like any tools, they should be used carefully.

In addition to all that Tompkins mentions, one of the guidelines that strikes me as particularly noteworthy is the suggestion that news organizations correct their social media mistakes.  As someone who turns to Twitter and other social media sites during breaking news, I can tell you that many news organizations do report inaccuracies, but few seem to own up to it.  It seems to me that preserving journalistic integrity is critical to preserving journalism’s future — and that every station ought to be developing a social media corrections policy.  How about you?

Filed under: 08. Producing for the Web, 11. Multimedia Ethics, 12. Getting Ready for the Real World | 2 Comments »