Maybe. Including “vox pops” or person-on-the-street sound bites or quotes won’t automatically make a story stronger. Often, they’re just window dressing. I can’t count the number of times I was sent out to get citizens’ reactions to some development or other and most of the people I talked to had no idea what I was asking about.

Does that mean the public is stupid or woefully uninformed? Not necessarily.At least half the problem with this kind of reporting is that we ask the wrong people the wrong questions.

Choose the right place

Where do you go to find people for reaction stories? A public place near the office with lots of people, right? It probably shouldn’t be a surprise that few shoppers or commuters have informed opinions about every issue you could possibly bring up.

When you’re working on a reaction story, you’ll have better luck getting usable sound or quotes if you find people who actually care about the topic. That means you have to go to a place where they’re likely to gather. Need parents for an education story? Try a school parking lot or a soccer field. A health study? Ask people going and coming from a free clinic instead of a supermarket. It takes more effort, obviously, but the payoff is usually worth it.

Ask the right questions

Finding the right people is only half the solution, though. You need to ask questions differently than you would when talking to officials or other people who are accustomed to being interviewed. Don’t start with an agenda and ask them to fill in the blanks. It’s almost never productive to ask what people think of a pending proposal to…whatever.

Ask open-ended questions about the topic in general to learn what people are really concerned about and what they think should be done. If they don’t tell you what you expect to hear, maybe that’s your story.

Stories, not anecdotes

“Real people” often show up at the top of stories and never appear again. You know the drill: “Joe Smith has been looking for work for seven months, since he was laid off from his job at the manufacturing plant. He’s not alone….”

Anecdotal leads turn people into props or window dressing. If you really want to tell a character-driven story, the story has to be in large part about the character. And that doesn’t just mean bringing him or her back at the end. You know that drill too: “For Joe Smith, the bad news on unemployment means he’ll have to keep looking.”

Stories are stronger when characters get more than a hello and goodbye. An anecdote may be a good way to hook the audience but central characters will keep them reading or watching all the way to the end.

Sourced from: NewsLab

“My typical day involves starting the morning reading multiple newspapers both online and in print.  Then, I head into a morning meeting, typically via phone from my car or some random location, and pitch three story ideas for the day.  By noon, I am expected to have a preliminary Web script posted online including at least a few pictures. I usually write my script using my Droid phone and take pictures with my phone, too,” Ingles says.

After her first round of reporting, Ingles keeps working the story.

“Once I post, I get back to my story, interviewing, shooting b-roll and shooting my own standup.  I do not have my own cameraman and I also drive myself to and from stories,”  Ingles says. 

“If  I happen to go live, the cameraman will meet me at a location, but they do not shoot or edit for me.  Depending on the location of my story, I either head to the bureau or main station to edit. If those locations are not close, I upload my clips in the car to my laptop, log, track, write and edit, all while sitting in the driver’s seat.  Then, I either FTP my work, feed it in or upload it to the server from a computer at the main station.”

Now, she’s ready to get back to the Web.

“Before the story airs, I must have a new script with extended interviews and more information posted online. I commonly add more photos that I took throughout the day as well,”  Ingles says.

“Depending on available time, I also will leave the viewer with an option to learn more about the story.  For instance, I will write a “behind the scenes” blog regarding detailing what viewers did not get see on televison or direct my viewer to our Web site to see extended clips from an interviewee.”

Of course, the job sometimes requires Ingles to look “glamourous.”

“Now, should I be going live, you will find me curling my hair in the car (yes, my hybrid car has an electrical outlet) and putting my make-up on minutes before on-air time,” Ingles says. 

“Once my deadline is met, I have to cut a vo/sot for the 9, 10, and AM shows.  I try to include different sots to keep the story fresh for viewers and never recycle bites unless they are very emotional and striking.”

But there’s still work to be done.

“I conclude my day by sending a follow up file to the entire news team (reporters, photographers, producers, etc) via email detailing my findings, providing contact information for my interviewees and tell them what angle I think could/need to be pursued in the future,”  Ingles says.

Working in TV news today is defnitely not for slackers.

Twitter’s own advanced search page lets you filter queries to find tweets by location and time frame, and then set up an RSS feed for the results. Handy, if you’re tracking a breaking news story. You can also narrow your search to show only tweets in a specific language–Thai, for example, if you’re looking for sources on the unrest there–and then use Twitter’s built-in translator to read them in English.

Topsy goes Twitter one better by including the option to create an email alert for search results. Bing’s new Twitter search site lets you see tweets in “real time” but for my money, Monitter does that better. What Bing does offer is a list of results sorted by shared links, so you can quickly see what people are sharing and what they’re saying about it. WhosTalkin is another social search engine that includes blogs as well as Twitter.

Finding people on Twitter

Finding experts on Twitter can be an exercise in frustration if you don’t have a name to start with. But what if you could search what people have said about themselves in a Twitter bio? You can, using Google. Type this in the search bar:site:twitter.com intext:bio * [search term]. Make sure to leave spaces on either side of the asterisk.

Another way to find people on Twitter is to search by location. CityTweets streams tweets from and about two dozen cities, mostly in the U.S. LocalTweeps lets you find users anywhere by typing in a zip code or city but you have to click on their pages to see what they’ve written.

Searching Facebook

Things keep changing over at Facebook, not always for the better. Six months ago you could easily filter your friends by location. Now you can’t. But Facebook’s search function can help you find experts if you know where to look. Type a specialty in the search bar and then click on “groups” to see what comes up. Narrow the list by group type to find more useful results. You can also check “pages” and then choose a specific type of page, say “non-profit” or “organization” to find potential sources.

Another option for searching Facebook is OpenBook, a site whose goal is to expose just how much “private” Facebook information is really public. Fair warning: a lot of the search terms that come up on the page are offensive. But journalists could use it to see who’s posting about a breaking news story.

“You still need to sift the gold nuggets from the dust,” says Jeremy Caplan, visiting professor at City University of New York, who shared many of these tips during a webinar for SABEW members. “The key is to search efficiently so you can find the nuggets quickly.”

Hope this post is helpful. Do you have additional suggestions or favorite sites for searching social media?

Sourced from: NewsLab

Sue Carter and Bonnie Bucqueroux of theVictims and the Media Program at Michigan State University say it’s not a bad idea to open the conversation with, “I’m sorry for your loss,” or “I’m sorry for what happened to you.” “Even if those remarks sound canned to you, chances are that the victims will appreciate hearing them,” they write.

In any case, you’re better off sticking with a rehearsed comment than blurting out something that may be hurtful. Hard to believe, but one young reporter tried to establish some empathy by telling a mother who had lost a child that she knew how the woman felt because her dog had died.

Here are a few tips on how to handle tough interviews in the aftermath of a crime, accident or disaster:

• Make sure the family has been notified. Check and double check with officials before making your approach. Mistakes do happen. Decide what you will do and say if you become the inadvertent bearer of bad news.

• Have a plan. Know beforehand what you are going to say when you approach a survivor or relative. Decide precisely how you will phrase your request and practice it ahead of time.

• Leave your equipment behind. Announce who you are and what news organization you represent. Express regrets before asking of they’d be willing to talk.

• State your purpose. Explain that you are offering them an opportunity to share their memories and feelings, if they want to. Be clear about how much time you will need, whether you are live or on tape, and ask their help in choosing a location.

• Be prepared with alternatives. Offer a business card if they say they would rather talk later. Ask them if they would prefer that someone else speak for the family.

• Share control. Tell them they can choose to stop, to take a break, or to keep some remarks out of your coverage.

• Thank them for their effort. Reliving trauma takes a toll. Tell victims how much you appreciate their willingness to share their stories.

For more suggestions, seeInterviewing Victims–Tips and Techniques.

Sourced from: NewsLab

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.

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

One of the most common mistakes when it comes to dealing with numbers is failing to make sure those numbers add up. This can lead to stories about polls which sampled more than 100 percent of respondents, or budgets that are larger than the sum of their parts. All it takes is a minute with a calculator to avoid these kinds of errors–and the “you people are stupid” calls they often generate.

Another frequent mistake journalists make is relying on raw numbers instead of calculating the relationship between those numbers to help people understand what they really mean. Yes, that means you have to do the math to determine percentages, and percent change, and rates [comparing numbers while holding a key variable, like population, constant]. But the good news is there are dozens of terrific online calculators to help you get the results right. Calculator.com is another good starting point.

You can’t always be online, though, so learn how to use the calculator on your smart phone or PDA, or carry a separate calculator with you. You’ll also want to have other resources at your fingertips. Ask your local university for the name of a good statistician–someone you can call when faced with a confusing number stories. Consider using an online forum, like Ask Dr. Math at Drexel University, for questions that may be less time-sensitive.

Other resources are available to improve your skills and boost your confidence in dealing with numbers. In “News by the Numbers,” writing coach Jack Hart details a series of essential steps every journalist needs to take when dealing with number-heavy stories. The IRE’s Sarah Cohen offers cheat sheets and tips in a collection of handouts, “Danger! Numbers in the Newsroom!”

Journalist Robert Niles has posted statistics every writer should know. Included are valuable tips on how to determine if the data you are looking at adds up to a story worth reporting. Another tipsheet by Kathleen Woodruff Wickham of the University of Mississippi, can help you understand the basics of polling and includes an exercise to explain margin of error and confidence level.

You can test your basic math skills by taking this interactive quiz by Steve Doig (with credit to Phil Meyer). Or take the free Math for Journalists course at NewsU (registration required).

If you want to dig deeper, IRE’s Cohen has put together a book, Numbers in the Newsroom, that’s for sale through the IRE Web site. The late Victor Cohn’s classic guidebook, News and Numbers, has been updated by Lewis Cope. For skill drills and formulas, check the book Math Tools for Journalists by Kathleen Woodruff Wickham. For a comprehensive bibliography on numeracy, check the PowerReporting Web site.

Sourced from: NewsLab

We’ve learned a lot since then, most notably that the quality of the content definitely matters.  Still, the fact is, there’s more space for long-form video online than in most TV newscasts.

Michael Farrell is a photographer and producer for the Nebraska ETV Network.   Speaking to a group of Ole Miss journalism students about crafting documentaries, he offered advice that seems relevant to anyone who wants to tell compelling stories. 

When choosing the people to include in a story, Farrell says the tendency is to interview the first person who will talk to you.  Instead, he urges storytellers to find the right person.

“We have to cast them in the film; we have to determine how strong they are as characters,” Farrell said.

He says he often “auditions” his interview subjects by contacting them about his story and asking them who they would suggest he talk to about his topic.  In the process, he gets a a feel for how good they will be themselves without potentially hurting their feelings.

Farrell also offers this advice for getting the high quality content needed to support a longer story:

• Find an adviser or guide to help you in the research phase.  That person can lead you to the story idea and the themes you want to include.
• Sprinkle some of the hard, dry facts throughout the story – what someone called a “sawdust sandwich.”  You need to offer nuggets of important information and data, but try to sandwich them in between strong visuals and compelling sound.
• Be there long enough for people to feel comfortable.  To do long-form well, you can’t just parachute in and out;  you’ll get the best stuff by spending time with your subjects.
• Strong writing is the backbone – great visuals need to be hung on a frame.
• You have to outline.  The outline will change through the reporting and writing process, but without it you don’t know where the story came from or where it’s going.

Finally, Farrell told the group that they have to care.

“There’s nothing like having a passion for your story.”

It takes preparation and skill to do a good interview. It’s not just a matter of going out with a question and coming back with a sound bite. So NewsLab offers the following tips as a starter kit.

Choose the right person to interview

Talking to “the usual suspects” all the time can make stories predictable and flat. Look for different sources who might add a new perspective by asking these questions:

• Who is most directly involved in this story? Who is the central character?
• Who is most affected by what is happening in this story?
• Who is in conflict in this story?
• Who might have more information about this story?
• Who could help me find the right person to speak to for this story?

Evaluate your choice

• How does this source know what he or she knows? (Is this person in a position to know these things–either personally or professionally?) How can I confirm this information through other sources, through documents?
• How representative is my source’s point of view? Is this just one person who complains loudly about the landlord, because he or she has a personal problem? Or is this the most articulate voice speaking for an entire group that has serious, legitimate problems?
• Has this source been reliable and credible in the past? Am I only using this source because it’s the easy way to go? Because I know I’ll get a good sound bite?
• What is the source’s motive for providing information? Is this person trying to make himself look good, or to make his boss look bad? Why is he or she talking to me in the first place? Am I being manipulated or spun by this source?

Persuade reluctant sources

Arranging an interview is not always easy. People often don’t want to talk with a journalist, especially about controversial issues. When dealing with public officials, start from the premise that the public has a right to know what those officials are doing. Then anticipate their concerns:

• They don’t have time. Offer a more convenient time or place. Say you’ll drive to work with them in the morning and talk along the way. Be prepared to limit the amount of time you need, if this is an important source.
• They’re afraid. They think you will make them look bad. Be clear about why you want to talk to them and why the story needs their point of view. If they are just anxious about talking to a reporter, work hard at being a real person so they can relax. Don’t use the “interview” word. Just say you want to talk to them, but be clear that it will be on camera.
• They don’t know what to say. Maybe you have chosen the wrong source. Or maybe you have not been clear about what you are seeking. Focus on what the person does want to say, so you can draw him or her out. If you are dealing with children or victims of trauma, take special care.
• They are being protected. You have to get through a secretary or a public relations officer to the person you want. Write a letter directly to the source. Call during lunch or after business hours–you may find that person at his desk without a secretary to run interference. Some reporters have been known to just show up at the office or at a location where the person will be (the parking lot, a football game). Cultivate the person who is standing in your way. Sometimes they will even take your case if you are polite but persistent. Or use an intermediary–someone who knows that source and can put in a good word for you.
• They don’t see any reason to talk to you. Give them good reasons why they should. If they say no comment, ask what they thought the last time they read a story with a no comment in it. Did they think the person was hiding something? Wouldn’t they rather provide some information to set the record straight? Appeal to their sense of importance. Tell them you really need their point of view, that they can contribute something no one else can.

Finally, if officials simply refuse to talk, hold them accountable.

Sourced from: NewsLab

Not very well, says Craig Silverman, founder of Regret The Error.com. J-school students may lose points for errors like misspelled names but fear of mistakes doesn’t lead to accuracy, Silverman says. Instead, he suggests formal accuracy training based on real world examples, public consequences and checklists.

One school is doing this now, according to Silverman: the Tilburg School of Journalism in the Netherlands, which has a three week fact checking program for its fourth year students.

Each morning, the students gather in a room to review the day’s news and identify stories that seem questionable. Then they go to work, hitting the phones and other sources to pull suspicious stories apart and see if they hold up to scrutiny. As of today, roughly 80 per cent of the stories checked have contained some form of factual mistake, according to instructor and Dutch journalist Theo Dersjant. Their findings are published on a blog.

Here’s the best part. If the students goof up and falsely accuse a journalist of making a mistake, they have to apologize in person and hand deliver a pie!

Sounds like a great system to me. Any other schools want to try it? Any schools already doing something similar? Let us know in the comments.