These are research notes for my next video, which is a practical guide to professional journalism. Unlike most of my sources for the previous video, this one is in active circulation in university classrooms. I went through this one really slowly, to evaluate how best practices have changed since the older textbooks I self-taught with were published.

If you’d like a peek behind the curtain, or are curious what folks are learning in J-school these days, then this piece is for you. But maybe clear out your afternoon. It’s about 23k words.

---

A Preface to the Preface

This is the most modern textbook I’ve read so far. It’s a testament to just how quickly the field is changing that it’s already out of date by the preface.

The authors contend that, based on US Department of Labor estimations, the field is expected to grow 14% by 2030, which we are nearly halfway to, and papers are in fact in crisis; they’re closing left and right. They also greatly overestimate the average pay of present reporting jobs, inflated by as much as 50%. (“And many of those jobs pay well. The median salary for jobs in those areas is $62,340, which is well above the median salary for all jobs of $45,760. Pg.xii)

In Washington state, the current median for reporting jobs is already below the national average. So either the 2024 edition of this textbook did not update its preface after the release of ChatGPT, or somebody did an oopsie.

There are a couple of other gaps in the preface (touting that digital revenue will soon surpass print revenue, but failing to identify that’s because print revenue has cratered, or that digital revenue is drying up across the board; the assertion that modern media is generally unbiased and professional, but also identifying that the largest broadcast news provider is Fox; using “bigamy” as an example of a crime in a very weak exercise), but if I stop to note them all I’ll never actually get started.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m actually really looking forward to this book, but I can tell their outlook on the craft is far rosier than is appropriate, and as a textbook vendor for the discipline they are incentivized to be positive about it. This rubs me wrong, since the folks they’re misleading are students, and this textbook already costs $118.

(The salesperson at the bookstore physically “oof”’d when she saw the price tag. Then I told my girlfriend that story, and she oof’d too.)

Chapter 1: Journalism Today

The authors outline 8 primary issues in the field which are being actively debated by professionals today. About four of them are unique.

First is “Social responsibility, diversity, and inclusion”. They quote the Hutchins Commission for a bit, and concede that the appeal to diversify newsrooms has not been answered. (Page 5)

They reference a tool which I’m interested in following up on; I’m excited by the prospect of a new book pointing me to assets on the internet which still actually exist at the time I’m reading them, oh boy!

“A freeware process, developed in part by a grant from the Online News Association, is now used by some media organizations and journalism programs to monitor the diversity of source demographics in real time, while covering a story. The Fair Chance Diversity Reporting Tool by Grimm, Davenport and Michigan State University students is explained at www.fairchancereporting.com. Source diversity within news stories builds trust that different groups are being represented, which adds to comprehensive and accurate reporting.” (Page 5)

That sounds really useful, but having looked it up, I’m a little confused. The description of a “freeware process” implies that it is a piece of software, but it’s not; it’s more of a structure for their university classes. The website only explains that it uses “off the shelf tools”, which are both unnamed and necessarily not developed by them. Whatever this program (in the university sense of the term) is, I certainly can’t access it. So in what sense is it free, or any kind of ware?

I also can’t help but notice that they’re signal boosting a program that was developed by one of the authors (Lucinda Davenport), sort of like when a professor assigns a book their wrote for a class. If I get to the end of this textbook and it isn’t used or mentioned again, I’m going to be annoyed, because they’re essentially advertising their dogfood.

---

Second and third issue in the list boil down to: the news is depressing. Over-reporting on negative news can cause fatigue in the audience, and lower engagement.

Solutions Journalism; Reporting meant to provide constructive alternatives, as opposed to just saying “shit is fucked”. They claim this is different from “advocacy journalism” because it is “objective” and not “political”, and I think that’s a very privileged thing to believe.

Modern journalists are experimenting with presenting a “glass half full” perspective when it is reasonable to do so.

---

Fourth is technology, specifically the internet. They mention VR and that’s not really panning out, but I get what they mean.

Fifth is the money problem; the industry is bleeding revenue from the shift in advertising model.

“The hope is that consumers will pay for news if they want professional and ethical journalists investigating stories— not fake news possibly written by illegitimate sources.” (page 7)

Six through eight on the list are just slightly variations on the ones already mentioned (for example, income trouble but this time through the lens of COVID). I get the sense they just wanted to have a longer list here.

Last insight is that AP style is currently the industry standard; the expectation is that you’ll know how to use it on day one in a newsroom. (Page 12)

Chapter 2: Selecting and Reporting News

Newsworthiness criteria are slightly modified in this one, compared to older textbooks. The changes are mostly cosmetic; the meanings remain largely intact.

Timeliness – Unchanged; thing just happened.

Impact or Magnitude – Either it has a big effect, or it affects a lot of people.

Prominence – Celebrity status.

Proximity – In addition to the prior physical proximity, they add psychological. They use the example of parents feeling psychologically close to the Uvalde shooting. (page 18)

Unusualness – Oddity, unchanged except in name.

Conflict – Renamed “controversy” at first glance, but slightly expanded to include conflict in the dramatic sense (someone living out of their car, page 19)

Then they have a catch-all list of “other characteristics”:

• Humor
• “Straightforward” things; they use weather as an example. I get what they mean but this is poorly defined.
• Complexity

The size of the community and the news org also impacts how choosy they are with stories. Slow news days, towns where “nothing happens”, or reporters with no spare time could bump mundane events onto or off of the front page.

They briefly mention that papers develop niches; they describe the New York Post as NYC-focused crime, sports, and photos, without any note of their credibility. They describe the NYT simply as “wealthy and educated”.

Synonyms for hard news: “spot”, “straight”, or “breaking”, but the latter has a more specific connotation for timeliness.

There’s a module on the side of page 22, which reads: “HOT TIP!” Lol. They’re just the Five w’s and H. Though that does make me wonder if they don’t teach these anymore, since they’re relegated off to the sidebar.

On objectivity, they have an old-guard stance (page 22):

“News stories must be objective in the sense that they report actions, words, or situations without commenting on them… if an issue is controversial, they interview representatives of all groups affected… journalists may point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies… but they should not call people liars.”

The problem with this is it encourages bad habits; giving fascists screen time in the interests of “balance”, allowing Trump to get free publicity from parroting his words without pushback, and failing to provide “the truth about the fact”.

They do get around to this idea but at this point in the text they don’t provide any guidance of when to adhere to their original assertions or what I suspect they’d call the “devils advocate” position.

Things that aren’t newsworthy: This is actually an interesting addition, older textbooks haven’t bothered to do this.

• Routine / repetitive facts. “That the city hall meeting was in city hall or opened with the pledge of allegiance”
• Things that are gruesome or offensive. It’s interesting that we sort of didn’t enforce this during the Trump presidency.
• Sensationalism, but they do a bad job defining it.
• Rumors, unless exposing a rumor as false has value.
• Sexual violence, specifically the names of victims.
• Names of juveniles. But they do have a wonderful photo of Rittenhouse crying. (page 25)
• Trade names, in an effort to not provide free advertising.

Craig Silverman, Buzzfeed media editor, provides accuracy workshops with the Poynter Institute. (page 27) Adapted version of his checklist is on page 29.

Guest column is an impassioned piece from 36 year news vet about “paying your dues” at a local level. The idea is that national news is considered more glamorous, but on some level local work matters more. There’s more community impact. There’s also a tacit admission that what little local news remains is, at time of writing, of higher quality on average.

The authors echo the magic interview question, “how do you know?” again.

Silverman’s checklist includes “Confirm URL’s are correct and that the cited content is still there”. This makes me think about using The Internet Archive and manually triggering a backup in my Square story. Sources could use the ephemeral nature of today’s platform-centric web in an adversarial manner to remove evidence, and you should take precautions to prevent that.

Side note; I’m actually doing the exercises out of curiosity, but I won’t take any notes on them unless there’s something really interesting about a question.

Chapter 3: Newswriting Style

The authors consider it a strength that the format of most news is indistinguishable from organization to organization.

This chapter opens with pretty basic writing advice, probably to accommodate students who haven’t taken a ton of English.

In brief:

Simplify words, sentences, and paragraphs. (page 34)

In prose, it’s fun to tease out what the author meant. Don’t do that in news. Use the smallest words you can, and the shortest possible sentences. Balance that against the need to vary structure or your article will sound like a Dr. Seuss book.

Stick to just one idea per sentence or paragraph. Any shift in topic gets its own paragraph. Don’t use abstractions, metaphors, or fancy sentence structures.

“A survey found that 75% of readers understood sentences containing an average of 20 words. Comprehension dropped rapidly as the sentences became longer.” (Page 35)

Citation needed, none provided. It’s not that I doubt it, it sounds reasonable, but this is a book about journalism.

Use simple or common words if one is available. No need to reinvent the wheel. “Cubic containment system” graphic (page 36) is cute. Reminds me of the guy in Stardew who calls beds “sleep receptacles”.

Avoid journalese: that is, cliches specific to newswriting. I haven’t read about this elsewhere, but on reflection definitely recognize them.

Examples given (page 37):

• Fires rage
• Temperatures soar
• Earthquakes rumble
• Floods rampage
• Developing countries are war-torn, much-troubled, or oil rich

They provide a few examples of bad writing, one got a laugh out of me: “A pedestrian hit me and went under my car”. (page 37)

Avoid loaded words; “extremist”, “radical”, etc. In some contexts not using these is actually less honest. But in general, strive to separate opinion from fact. If you have to include the former, make sure it’s labeled as such.

Next section is on DEI.

Report on race, religion, and ethnicity only if it’s relevant to the story. They’ll bend this if given a police description, if they think it gives enough detail to reasonably identify the person. (page 40)

Similarly, you aren’t supposed to mention gender or sexuality unless it’s relevant. They define transgender/nonbinary for the uninitiated. They allow woman/man if gender is relevant, but have this odd aside that “lady” and “gentleman” is a “specific class”. How would you even verify that?

They discourage using gender-specific occupation names that are still in common parlance, like “policeman”, as well as mentioning anyone’s clothing or hairstyle unless it’s relevant. Probably they’d waive that one for soft news pieces, which often include personal details in the pursuit of being “humanizing”.

Standard practice on introduction is first + last name, and then last name only for subsequent introductions.

Bit on not identifying people by their relationship (so and so and his spouse), even if one person is a celebrity and the other isn’t. Also not using “he” as a catchall pronoun, which is pretty old news but I’m glad they’re formally teaching it. (page 41)

Example of a bad headline: “Olympics: Michael Phelps shares historic night with African-American”, featuring a cover image that shows but does not name the Black woman and doesn’t even contain Phelps to begin with.

Don’t describe age unless it’s relevant; check your adjectives to make sure you aren’t coding it to indicate reliability / professionalism. (page 42)

Column by Linda White recommends seeking out your city’s organizations for members of historically underrepresented groups; NAACP, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, temples, churches, etc (page 43) Connect with them in person rather than social media.

Chapter 4: The Language of the News

Page 56, brief mention of passive voice obfuscating responsibility for an action. I feel like they could have devoted more time to this given how often it’s invoked intentionally.

This section aged me fifty years:

“During the 1990’s, young people developed a set of “slammin” slang terms and “dissed” anyone still using the slang of the 1980’s. In the early 2000’s, someone may have given “props” to friends who knew the “off the hook” films showing at the “grind-house” and gotten “stoked” about “poppin tags” and looking for “lollipops” at the mall. Slang used to describe something that is awesome was “cool” and then “hot” and then “dope” or “sick”. Some slang terms such as GOAT or OMG, have evolved from abbreviations used in texts. If you are confused about these terms, try not to get “salty””. (page 68)

Just shoot me dead please.

Good journalists avoid cliches, and substitute or at least explain professional jargon. (Page 68)

Interesting anecdote about journalistic euphemisms: allegedly, a story about a woman who cut off a man’s penis ran using genital euphemisms, but led to an increase in willingness to use the term “penis” in the following six months. (Page 69! Nice.) The authors cite no sources, which is annoying, but they are claiming a 5000% increase. On closer examination, they just say “a search” so I bet they did it in-house, which means their methodology relies as much on Google’s algorithm as any phenomenon that can be measured. Note to look into this, it’s funny and now I’m curious about it.

(Side note I do not appreciate being blindsided with sexual assault language again.)

They explicitly do not weigh in on the ethics of using euphemisms like “visiting a site” for bombers, “collateral damage” for civilian deaths, or “downsizing” to mask layoffs. They stop at saying it happens in the profession, but don’t provide explicit guidance as to when it’s appropriate. In fact the preceding paragraphs mention that sometimes it’s necessary to use euphemisms to be polite. I dunno how I feel about that.

Different papers have different tendencies when printing profanity. (page 70). This book recommends omitting it unless it’s important to the story, but there are lots of knock-on effects of that choice either way. In one example, the AP writes “f***”, The LA Times said “used a blunt expletive”, and the NYT used “profanely dismissed”.

The authors attribute this to papers knowledge of their audience, but I think this can also serve a political purpose. It’s interesting to see folks get squeamish here, despite all of the calls to be as “objective” and perfectly accurate as possible. Hm.

I think I might make some space for this in video three.

4.8.7 – Stating the obvious (page 70)

This one is interesting for two ideas: First, “when people stop reading, watching, or listening to a story, they rarely think about why it bored them”. This was important for me to hear because I’m the kind of person that does dissect it that way. Its good to be reminded that’s unusual and that my readers won’t do that, or necessarily be able to provide feedback.

The other bit:

“To avoid repeating platitudes, reporters must first recognize them when they conduct interviews… most people confronted by guns are scared, and they often say so. If journalists want to quote [such a source], they should ask more penetrating questions until they receive more specific, interesting, or unusual details.”

This is genuinely really good advice. I guess even in the case where you want to communicate the obvious (the human interest side of being scared of a gunfight is still useful), any case in which you would want to do so would only be enhanced by putting in the extra effort and making your description unique.

I can imagine where I might be incentivized to phone this one in, if I had more of a deadline. I’m going to commit to asking smarter interview questions even if it’s something I know the answer to.

4.8.8 First-Person References

“Except in extraordinary circumstances, journalists should remain neutral observers. They should not mention themselves in news stories.”

They call this out as a “beginners mistake”, and I’ll bet that’s true. It also creates problems with implying advocacy by an organization. But it’s also a little old-guard; I could make an argument about how, in hyper-local journalism, the personal element could become a good thing. Trust in the institution is pretty low, and now there’s AI stuff everywhere. Allowing yourself a little space to be raw and personal in a story could be a way to rebuild trust and community, show that you’re a human.

I’m not saying the practice of separating yourself from the story should be abandoned; I think this is good professional advice. Just, I’ve got my eye on it as a rule worth intentionally breaking.

It’s also worth noting that this has been objected to before in New Journalism. I think this is worth talking about in the third video.

4.8.10 Gush (page 71)

“Reporters avoid quoting sources who “gush” with exaggerated enthusiasm. They write stories to inform members of a community, not to please their sources. News stories should report useful information. They should not praise or advocate.”

They mean this in a specific context: like a company talking about how great they are. But also, sometimes sources just give too much fucking detail, too. In either case, you have sort of an obligation to not quote them directly, and depending on what’s motivating them, to counteract that via summarization.

In my experience it’s easy to sidestep corporations trying to turn you into a PR mouthpiece; I already hate them. But excited witnesses are another story entirely. If you’re a people pleaser this can honestly be really hard to make yourself do. It’s so hard to turn that off, more than I expected.

Anyway, back to the intended use case, I like this advice:

“When a journalist finishes an article, it should sound like a news story, not a press release… Gush cannot be rewritten because there is nothing of substance to rewrite. It should simply be deleted.”

This makes me think about that first Revita article I did. I wanted to cut down their corporate response but wasn’t sure how to balance that against my responsibility to quote accurately. I think I have a better handle on it today, and I can sympathize with other newbies struggling with it. Definitely include this in the interview section of video two.

Also is gush an accepted industry term? I need to look that up.
….verdict: no. But I like it so it, so I’m making fetch a thing.

Anyway, the authors don’t give any advice here on how to combat corpo gush here, but they hint they’ll come back to it in Chapter 19.

4.8.11 Specific Time References

“Unless your instructor tells you otherwise” is a weird way to open this. Are we teaching kids for class, or prepping journalists for their career?

Either way, the advice is (page 72):

“Use the day of the week to refer to events that occur on the day of publication, or within seven days before or after publication. For events that are more… used a specific date, such as July 23rd or March 4th.”

I’ve noticed some writers fuck this up, and depending on the availability of metadata it can entirely remove your ability to determine the exact date when an article is reviewed later.

Authors advise using past tense only because who knows how long editing will take. It might not be happening by the time you print.

Don’t use!!!!!!!!!!!!too much punct((uati[on))]!!1one!!! (page 73)

They actually advise not using exclamation points at all. Presumably you can do so in quotes. They also don’t like parentheses, because it increases the time needed to parse a sentence.

Chapter 5: Libel, Privacy, and News-Gathering Issues

Chapter opens by talking about a pair of 2017 SCOTUS dissents, by Thomas and Gorsuchs, which suggested NYT v. Sullivan should be repealed. That’s the case that defined “actual malice” requirements for libel. It’d be a disaster if they ever got around to it.

It looks like Sarah Palin’s 2017 suit, still under appeal as of 2022, is poised to challenge this.

5.1.1 Elements of a Libel Suit (Page 84)

• Defamation: likely to injure the plaintiff’s reputation, and that a “substantial segment of the respectable public” understood the statement as defaming them. Must be factual and believable
• Identification: explicitly or implicitly about the specific plaintiff
• Publication: Distributed to at least one other person. There’s a statute of limitations on this which varies from one to three years. Clock is restarted by republishing. According to previous rulings, page updates and sharing old hyperlinks don’t count.
• Falsity: Plaintiff can present credible evidence that the defamatory communication is false. “Matters of public concern” is not actually defined in law yet.
• Injury: Plaintiff must prove it caused harm, which ncludes emotional, reputational, physical, or economic. Only required in absence of actual malice.
• Fault: Plaintiff must prove it was either done negligently, or with actual malice. Requirements differ for private vs public persons (the later usually only has to prove negligence)

These things have previously been found to prove or contribute to proving actual malice:

• If the defamatory bits are just made up; like fake quotations.
• Failing to investigate sources which are known to be biased or unreliable.
• Publishing something unverified which is “so inherently improbable that only a reckless person would believe it.”
• Failing to check sources that could conclusively confirm or deny the defamatory allegation.
• Speculation by reporters
• Publishing something that a source had retracted, if the reporter was aware that the statement had been retracted. This is different than a change in speaking terms.

These things aren’t necessarily indicative of actual malice:

• Disliking or even intending to harm the subject.
• Failing to investigate stories a reasonable (?) journalist has no reason to doubt
• Publishing quickly; if you have no reason to doubt a story you are not required to dot every I and cross every t before covering something breaking. Although you probably still should, I dunno about this one.
• Simple errors like misspelling names or “reporting complicated statistics incorrectly”.
• If the interpretation of a document is reasonable, despite being mistaken.
• “Adopting an adversarial or investigative stance”. That’s good.
• Publishing even though the subject denied it, if they provided no evidence.

Public officials vs private figures are still not very clearly defined in law. (page 90)

A person might be considered a public official if they have “voluntarily assumed some special prominence or role in society”. Most, but not all, government employees would qualify. Fame is another factor; it doesn’t have to be national if the case is something local and the person is well-known there (this is a gray area). There’s also a concept of “limited purpose” public figures: folks who organize around specific issues can be considered public figures in cases that deal with that exact subject matter. (So like, an abortion rights activist speaking at a protest)

Defenses to libel:

• Truth. On one hand, this is generous; it can be just the gist of the statement (see the “number of protestors” argument). On the other, accurately quoting someone else making a defamatory statement usually doesn’t count.
• Fair-report privilege. An extension of laws that protect people from libel for what they testify in court, or say in as a part of passing legislation. In this case, most reporters are protected when reporting on court proceedings, official documents, etc, as long as they report the contents of those documents accurately.
• Fair comment and criticism. “Applies only if the opinions are based on true facts, are the sincere options of the speakers and are not motivated solely by ill will”. This is maybe the diciest ground to stand on.

Covering your butt as a journalist:

• Make sure everything you print is accurate, obviously.
• Don’t risk printing things that aren’t newsworthy to begin with.
• Identify everyone as precisely as possible
• Give anyone criticized the opportunity to respond, and if they decline, say so.
• Look into any evidence offered.
• Do not ignore contradictory sources.
• Double check the motivations of folks making potentially defamatory claims.
• Be transparent with credibility problems in your story.
• Avoid anonymous sources if you can; you don’t have to reveal them in court, but the judge might instruct them to assume that you made it up if you choose to do that. If someone is attacking someone else, you probably don’t want to allow that to remain anonymous to begin with.
• If you have extra time to investigate, take it.
• Adhere to established note-taking policies. If you keep them all, keep them all. If you destroy them all, destroy them all. Don’t keep some and burn others.

I should probably write a policy for that, now that I think about it. As an independent, I don’t have one to inherit.

(Page 95) There are four types of privacy invasion, but not every state observes every type. Those include intrusion, publicity to private facts, false light, and misappropriation of identity.

Intrusion doesn’t require forced entry into someone’s home; cameras and microphones count. Probably hacking accounts does, too. Sometimes expectations of privacy extend to the workplace; it depends.

“Reasonable expectation of privacy” is a tricky one, because a lot of workplaces are not open to the public, but even some that are could be assumed to be private in the case of breakrooms, etc.

According to 18 U.S.C 2511(2)(d), reporters can record conversations they’re party to without asking for permission (this is not specific to reporters). Big asterisk though, 12 states have conflicting 2-party consent laws. (page 96) It’s unclear to me how those could exist if there’s a more specific federal law… maybe it means the State can charge you, but the fed can’t?

“Courts do not consider ordinary news-gathering techniques— examining public records; interviewing someone’s friends, relatives, enemies, and associates; and interviewing or attempting to interview a person— intrusive.” (Page 97)

The authors claim that things in the public record cannot be considered “giving publicity to private facts”, but iirc some courts disagree. See this 2017 AP news story of journalists being sued for requesting public records. It happened again in 2021. These are specific to the “private facts” distinction, though I’m fairly certain I remember a case recently that was. I’ll look it up later.

Even if something is considered private, if the journalist can show legitimate public interest, they can still disclose it. This is in fact the basis of their job. (page 97)

5.3 News-Gathering Issues

Freedom of speech does not necessarily mean freedom to investigate, and reporters rely on judges to conclude that one requires the other. Technically, it’s not a right that you have. At least, not explicitly.

Generally, emergency responders can ask you to stay out of the way and courts will frown on noncompliance, so you should do what they ask… except that cops know this, and they’ll take advantage to prevent you from covering them in an unflattering way. The book doesn’t endorse resistance, but obviously some amount of it is necessary for the press to cover police misconduct.

CNN, reporter Jimenez arrested in the course of live reporting on the George Floyd protests. This was a no-no by police, but what the fuck are you gonna do about it, realistically? (page 101).

Trump quote about reporters, “truly bad people with a sick agenda”.

Lots of reporters met with violence around 2020. Good example for the video is Andrea Sahouri, in Des Moines. She was acquitted, but it was a whole thing.

According to U.S Freedom Tracker, 139 reporters were arrested between May and December 2020, compared to four in that same period the previous year (and 9 total for all of 2019). (Page 101)

Portland, Oregon had a restraining order issued protecting the gear and personnel of specific organizations who were carrying press passes. These aren’t standardized; you don’t like, get one in the mail when you decide to be a journalist, so I guess you better join a union.

Advice from the authors on not getting your ass beat by the fuzz:

• Carry a press pass (which means you have to pay for one)
• Don’t trespass or cross a clearly marked police line. They don’t specify whether “implied lines”, officers loitering and not doing their job all in one spot, count, or if they just mean yellow tape.
• Don’t take anything from a crime scene (lol)
• Obey all orders, even if it interferes with getting a story or photo. I disagree with this one, sometimes it’s worth pushing it if they give a command that is obviously unconstitutional.
• Don’t argue with cops. I’ll do you one better, don’t talk to them.
• Keep $50-100 on hand for bail.
• Have a government issued ID.

Scott Olsen, a Getty photographer, is cited for these (page 102)

• “Know your limitations”. Bring a buddy if you’re new.
• Wear protective gear, like goggles, helmet, gas mask, gloves, boots, and pads. I feel like this is great advice but it’s extremely fucked up that you need to do this. Also I can see some asshole cop arguing that it made you look more dangerous.
• Write down some phone numbers (supervisor or lawyer). Write it on your legs because protesters use their arms, so it “differentiates you”.
• Keep extra copies of your ID in case cops seize your first one.

It’s not explicitly stated but don’t use biometrics. They mention that the cops will take your phone first; they’re going to go through it if you give them the opportunity.

Page 103, the gift of FOIA. Exemptions include classified intel, info “related to internal personnel rules and practices”, trade secrets, invasions of personal privacy, “inter-agency memoranda that would reveal decision making processes” (I’m curious about this one), certain law enforcement investigative files, info on financial institutions, and maps that show oil and mineral deposits. (weirdly specific, that one)

In theory, a FOIA has a 20 day time limit, with a 10 day extension. In reality, HAHAHAHA YEAH RIGHT. Authors mention some departments have 20 year backlogs.

Missouri general assembly anecdote; amending laws to cover their asses. This is the death-penalty gaffe that I think was covered on Last Week Tonight recently. (page 105)

Judicial records can be protected if there’s reasonable concern coverage might prejudice the trial. This is a lot harder than it used to be thanks to NYT v. United States.

Page 106 mentions voluntary reporting guidelines, made in response to gag orders issued in the 1970’s. It doesn’t name the group that proposed them, I’ll have to look that up. These seem more like a best practice than any formal requirement; mostly it’s about publicizing confessions or opinions.

Confidential Sources

Here’s the dilemma; if you promise to keep a source confidential, you can be sued for not doing so. There is no federal shield law, but there are state ones which vary widely. Some only apply to “traditional” journalists, which I think is pretty fucked up.

It makes sense that we ought to know our local laws. So, let’s go on an adventure and look up Washington! RE: Reporter’s Privilege…

Washington’s reporter shield statute was signed into law on April 27, 2007, and is codified at RCW 5.68.010. The statute provides the “news media” (as defined therein) with absolute protection for confidential sources and qualified protection for other journalistic materials and information. The statute clarifies and expands the scope of protection for reporters from compelled testimony and disclosure.

Here’s that precise statute and it’s definition on news media:

5) The term “news media” means:
(a) Any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite station or network, or audio or audiovisual production company, or any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution;
(b) Any person who is or has been an employee, agent, or independent contractor of any entity listed in (a) of this subsection, who is or has been engaged in bona fide news gathering for such entity, and who obtained or prepared the news or information that is sought while serving in that capacity; or
(c) Any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the entities listed in (a) or (b) of this subsection to the extent that the subpoena or other compulsory process seeks news or information described in subsection (1) of this section.

Sick, thanks again Washington!

Two examples on page 108 highlight misconduct from police and the justice department, and it’s recent. This is an ongoing and serious problem.

So this is the root of the “decide whether you keep your notes or don’t” thing. In the same way that corpos cheat, you can just…have a really nasty data retention policy. As long as you’re consistent with it. Because currently, the fed can’t legally force you to take notes, and up until the point that it is necessary for an investigation and you are notified, they can’t compel you to take good care of them either.

Chapter 6: Ethics

This chapter is shockingly small. (about 25 pages)

“Reporters…abide by the ethical codes of their organization, industry, community, and safety. If they are unsure of a decision, they always take the high road, the morally superior way to deal with something.” (page 115)

It goes on to say that “above all other principles, journalists must: act and think morally; distinguish between right and wrong; and stay within the bounds of fairness, good taste, and common decency”.

This is a glimpse into both the ways establishment journalists envision themselves, and the way that they do not conceive of independent journalists, even when teaching. This is a lovely goal, but Fox News probably also thinks they’re doing this, so now what?

Moving on, modern industry codes of ethics cited include The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the News Leader’s Association, and the National Press Photographer’s Association. I’ve seen SPJ; I’ll look the other two up a bit later.

Page 116 has a weird caption on a rack of magazines. It reads: “Legitimate news publications, such as these magazines, must include only articles that adhere to he organizations and the industry’s ethics.” A Hudson ad is partially in frame, printed on the store shelf and implying this shot was candid, but they’ve clearly been carefully arranged. This jumped out at me both because of the value judgment (this chapter is so far very focused on established industry), but because of the rate of decay of some of these publications. Forbes, specifically, has dropped its bar for at least online publications. As time goes on attempting to tie “brands” with quality of reporting is getting riskier to do.

Canons of Journalism, by The American Society of Newspaper Editors, was one of the first formal industry codes of ethics in 1923. They eventually merged with the AP Media Editors to become the News Leaders Association in 2019. (page 116)

SPJ was apparently originally called Sigma Delta Chi in 1909. I’m curious about the fraternity vibes.

There’s also the Radio, Television, Digital News Association (RTDNA), I’ve seen them mentioned somewhere else once before. The Online News Association (ONA) is new to me.

There’s a small list of organizations for historically marginalized groups; The National Association of Black Journalism (NABJ), the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), the Native American Journalists Association (NAJA), and the Asian American Journalist’s Association (AAJA). The Association of LGBTQIA+ Journalists acronym is NLGJA, although it’s not listed here. Presumably they chose that because it already contains an acronym and culturally we don’t need to fuel the “alphabet soup” memes any more than already exist. (Page 116)

I took a second to look into the NLGJA website and oof, their calendar hasn’t been updated since 2015 (but they’re clearly still hosting conventions). They’ve updated their name twice since then, and other pages like student applications are still up to date. Jury’s out on whether it’d be useful to contact them, professionally; I’d probably get more mileage out of a union.

Briefly fell down a rabbit hole about counterfeit press pass mills, jesus I didn’t realize this was such a problem. Okay, back on task.

Ethical decision making

The authors primarily defer to established codes of conduct (a little lazy to not at least reproduce and explain them), but they offer a couple of questions to ask oneself about “ethical dilemmas”. (page 117-118)

• Who will be hurt/helped, and how many?
  • They boil this down to “the greater good” trumping stories which cause personal discomfort. It’s literally a paragraph.
• What is the objective of this story?
• Will my decision contribute to the reason for writing the story?

Okay, so we need to dig into this one. The example they provide is kind of wild. Gonna break it down by paragraph.

“Prostitution, crack houses, and violence are directly correlated in some cities. In neighborhoods confronting these problems, families, business owners, and government officials try to combat the illegal and unsafe activities by encouraging the police to make more arrests and encourage news organizations to cover the busts.” (page 117)

So built in here, we have some pro-policing, anti-sex work assumptions. We don’t love that. Directly correlated with what? Presumably each other? Citation needed?

“Editors realize that such publicity could ruin reputations, marriages, and careers. Both clients and prostitutes often have families and colleagues who know nothing of their outside activities or criminal actions.” (page 117)

It goes on to describe a specific bust:

“In a big bust of 20 accused, one “John” was a scout leader and another was the DEI administrator of a local community college. One of the prostitutes attended law school and another was trying to make ends meet for his family.” (page 117)

Again, implication that people need to be saved from sex work; that a law school education would make them more valuable. The DEI inclusion was odd; stick with me here.

They go on to describe the editors decisions in covering the story; whether it should be on a jump page, presented a short story, etc, with each impacting the tone and amount of damage to the accused.

“They then revisited the macro issue— ridding their community of an unsavory business that attracted drugs, violence, and disease and other threats to family neighborhoods. Once they clarified their reasons for running the story, they were able to resolve the micro issues more easily. They put the story on the home page with a list of names and mug shots of both the accused customers and prostitutes.” (page 117, emphasis mine)

Let’s engage with this as if it’s a true story. (They didn’t link to it.)

This demonstrates one of the points of Manufacturing Consent perfectly; these editors are working to further an establishment narrative by law enforcement to punish what is probably a low-income community, in the name of “family values”.

Beyond Chomsky, there’s another issue here; they’re merely accused. You put their mugshots and names on the front page of your paper’s website? That’s absolutely unethical; it’s anti-poor, anti-sex-work, and flies in the face of the example you JUST gave on the libel section advising journalists not to do anything that might bias a jury.

I feel like this section was written by a different person, and encapsulates the holier-than-though old-guard reporter persona better than I ever could.

Six Guiding Questions (H. Eugene Goodwin) Page 118:

1. What do we usually do in a case like this? (what’s the org’s policy)
2. Is there a better alternative?
3. Can I look myself in the mirror tomorrow?
4. Can I justify this to family, friends, and the public?
5. What principles or values can I apply?
6. Does this decision fit the kind of journalism I believe in and the way people should treat one another?

The Potter Box

This is presented as a “moral reasoning framework”.

It’s creator is “social ethicist and theologian Ralph Potter”, who believed these four categories were “universal to ethical dilemmas”.

You draw a 2×2 table, with each box labeled:

• Facts, without judgment
• Values, such as personal, moral, professional, and societal
• Principles or classic ethical philosophies
• Loyalties; such as who you care about most

This is some Silicon Valley looking shit. The principles box is nested reasoning, too. (The example they give cites “Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance”; if you know what that is, and value it, that’s sort of the whole table isn’t it? You didn’t need to do an exercise.)

Page 120, there’s another paragraph of non-information labeled “Diversity, equity, and inclusion”. It’s weird to see a thing I believe in rendered as an afterthought in this way. It also breaks the format of the chapter? I feel like someone added this to get a DEI advocate to shut up, but didn’t work super hard on it.

Common Ethics Issues

Plagiarism; don’t do it. That’s the whole section. Probably students do need to hear that so, I give them a pass on this being brief. (page 120) I thought it was funny that they have an image of an article, covering an example of a journalist being caught plagiarizing. They include the byline but not the masthead (it’s the New York Post, lol).

Choosing sources; Don’t use friends or relatives. Don’t get too friendly with sources you do choose. Don’t be afraid to piss them off with negative coverage; they’ll get over it. Pass a story off to a peer if there’s a conflict of interests. Use the two-source rule and avoid anonymous sources. (page 122)

“Journalists avoid secretly recording interviews because that tactic is devious and unfair (but see chapters 5 and 11).” (page 122).

Well I’m curious what they say in chapter 11, then, presumably that’s the investigative one? In some circumstances this is not only warranted, but the only way the story can be covered.

Don’t accept gifts, this one’s pretty obvious. “Avoid the appearance of impropriety”; don’t risk anything that can even be misunderstood by the public. They say you can accept a coffee; I still wouldn’t.

Junkets: never heard this term. It means free trips provided to critics by subjects, used to be common in Hollywood and the fashion industry. Don’t accept these; the excuse mainstream folks give for needing them is weak. It does actually apply to indie folks (who probably, honestly can’t afford to cover these events otherwise and have nobody to submit an expense to) but you still shouldn’t. It’d be best to just adjust your beat and intended coverage to fit your means.

According to SPJ: journalists should “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility”. This is some view-from-nowhere bullshit. I do agree on not holding public office being a good idea, but the implication that you should give up organizing and activism is gross, outdated, and has to go.

“Many journalists prefer to freelance full-time,” (page 125). Do they really enjoy the benefits listed or do their employers enjoy not paying them?

Page 125 talks about the importance of objectivity, and how unconscious bias can drive stories in subtle ways such as the questions selected.

Don’t hassle victims for your news. Remember they’re people, and have potentially suffered some kind of trauma.

They mention considerations of privacy when covering members of the general public but don’t really go into specifics.

Page 126 has a potentially transphobic comic, we don’t love that. -.- I’d have to see if I can find the source, maybe it’s a reference I don’t get.

On posing as others: it’s gray. There’s both pretending to be a specific person (you better have a good reason to do this, in most cases you can write a better story more fit for purpose by other means), but there’s also just not identifying yourself as a journalist. There are legit reasons to do this (it might put someone on their guard), but you could argue it’s a form of deception.

They obliquely reference Nellie Bly going undercover in hospitals, but not by name. I just know enough about it to recognize it. They’re not a fan of that kind of work, though they seem to accept that it is sometimes acceptable. If you do it, they advise being extra sure to provide right of final reply, and taking the time in your piece to explain to readers why the deception was necessary. I think those are fair expectations.

Don’t get in the way of first responders. It actually gives the advice to not attempt to negotiate for hostages. (?lol?)

I like this note on mental health, I’ve never seen this elsewhere:

“Sometimes journalists are repeatedly assigned to cover tragic events because they are good reporters in these situations. It is important for journalists to take a break from this type of coverage and to also talk with a rpofessional counselor to unpack their experience.” (page 128)

“News executives consider the best ways to inform, educate, or entertain their audiences”. (page 128) Do they mean like, corporate executives? -.-; because if so, objection.

Don’t speculate; goes without saying.

Consider whether a photo actually enhances the story or just serves as spectacle. They mention that journalists who see a lot of crime scenes might become desensitized to what the public can tolerate, and point to the Nieman foundation for tips on how to handle graphic content sensitively.

Don’t alter images, but also be careful when evaluating photos from “citizen journalists”, emphasis theirs. The internet is a mess nowadays.

No mention of AI generated stuff, I guess they haven’t prepared lessons on that yet.

Page 130 repeats previous content on not naming juveniles, sexual assault victims, etc. There’s a lot of talk of sexual violence in this book.

Brief note on killers craving notoriety, which the media can be complicit in providing. (page 131) Cover the story, but don’t be PR for a murderer.

Very briefest of mention of social media rumors and not to repeat them without verifying. I feel like modern media needs more instruction on this, than this book provides so far. (page 132)

“Some advertisers, especially in magazines and on websites and social media, want to dictate story content within the publication and placement of their ads to be close to certain articles. News outlets usually refuse to comply”. (page 133)

Except I’ve seen the Washington Post do this for ads for weapons companies, which ran on articles about that company. They did not respond to queries about it, either, which flies in the face of the “appearance of impropriety” idea. I think a more comprehensive book would investigate ad placement companies and services, which are putting a layer of plausible deniability between them in a novel and concerning way.

They advise against native advertising, but don’t go into detail about anything else. No information in this chapter on the ongoing conflict of interests in advertising in the news. I’ll be extremely disappointed if this doesn’t come up again later, because this is where I would have expected to see it. Elements is much more detailed and thoughtful on this topic, at a fraction of its length.

That’s it for ethics, I guess. Thank goodness these students are prepared now to always make the morally superior decision?

Chapter 7: Basic News Leads

Definitions of leads, nut graphs. Cute little picture of the “story tree”, which is probably helpful for the target audience. Does anyone actually use this in the field?

Brief allusion to the importance of being open to new information changing your conceptualization of the story, and what its central thesis should be. (page 144)

Importance of outlining. Mention of Steele and Barlett, presumably they’ll cover the documentation / organization flow I’ve seen in the IRE handbook.

A few tips on planning for b-roll, assuming you’re using video or audio elements in your story. This book seems to treat that as a given in digital journalism, which I don’t object to but is definitely a shift from older texts.

“…most news organizations have their reporters carry digital video recorders because staff photographers are often too busy to hang around for an entire interview.” (page 146)

The lead should be direct about the story’s central point. They argue that it should only answer one or two of the 5H’s + W, whatever is most important. Trying to cram them all in there makes it hard to read.

This is new; they distinguish between “immediate” and “delayed” identification leads. The difference is essentially whether the person is named (a story about the president) or given a description (a farmer in X town).

A “blind” lead is one which holds back details to get to the story quicker, which they caution is not the same thing as hiding those details. The purpose is to get to the most unique bit of the story that will grab the reader’s attention and increase the odds they stick around for the whole thing, not to fool them. (page 148) Probably this terminology could be more inclusive.

A “blind” lead is usually followed by a “catchall graph”, to fill in the questions and sources inspired by the lead.

Their example of a buried lede is instructive but also contains an example of editorializing through the veneer of objectivity, by deciding that “the State’s budget doubled” is more newsworthy than “equitable healthcare being provided to inmates”. (page 149) They’re not wrong, that probably is the more timely piece of news, but it would be really easy to hide behind that to manufacture consent for specific policies (in this case reducing inmate care).

The best leads are a single sentence, in a strict order of subject, active verb, object. This makes it clear who did what to whom. Being concise is the most important quality.

They give an example of the shortest possible leads; “the president is dead” is effective because it has no extraneous information. I’m not sure about “there’s new hope for couch potatoes” because that actually does not tell you what the story is about.

Reporters should look for specific, unique details when gathering information, to improve boring storytelling. They also advise against using conditional statements (“if this, then this”); it won’t age as well if the thing doesn’t happen, and (this is my opinion) probably indicates that you haven’t found the correct active verb to report on.

Repeats that you should not use the passive voice. (page 153)

The (good) advice to use strong verbs can conflict with the need to not editorialize, if you don’t fully understand the implications of the verb you’ve chosen you can ascribe motivation. I can probably do a better job covering this in my video.

Make an effort to find local ties to your story if you’re covering national news. It’ll make it more impactful to your readers and give your coverage something special.

They go on to recommend updating your lede as you collect new information, if your story is digital. I’m really curious about this because, while this is an advantage internet coverage, it can create transparency issues. (page 155)

I hope they have some advice on how / when to format update notices to articles. This is definitely something the industry is still perfecting, I bet there are a lot of competing practices.

…nope, they don’t. Hopefully later?

Always attribute opinions directly to a source. (page 156) It gives the old advice that this opinion should never be the journalists, and I understand why traditionally this has been the case. I hypothesize that for hyperlocal, indie journalists it should be fine to do so, but you’ll need to hone an entirely new and unexplored skill of attributing those feelings to yourself, and doing so especially clearly in a medium where that is not the norm.

7.5 Some Common Errors

Don’t begin with the attribution, begin with the thing that happened. It is more important to understand the action than who is speaking, although both are important. (page 157) I’ve probably messed this up before!

“Minimizing the news”; by this they mean telling stories in strictly chronological order. I was excited to see this (however detail-lite it is) because this is basically the only reference to or guidance against the non-inverted pyramid story structure. I mean, they’re not exactly the same, necessarily, but they’re in the same ballpark.

All that is to say, make sure that your story highlights the most important thing, not necessarily the first or the most recent one.

“Agenda leads”, doesn’t mean what I expected. It’s putting too much emphasis on the time and place a story occurred. This is a habit of PR firms; that’s generally not the most newsworthy bit.

““Label leads” mention a topic but fail to reveal what was said or done about it…a good lead does more than report that a group met, held a press conference, or issued a report. It reveals what the group did at the meeting, what was said at the press conference, or what was written in the report.” (page 159)

I love having a word for this now, how helpful. I’ve encountered these in the wild before (often about policy, or court judgements) and its always frustrating.

An example of a bad lead they give is “The city council Tuesday night discussed ways of regulating a new topless club in the city”; a more helpful one would be “An additional fee for business licenses is one way the city council is considering regulating a new topless club”. (again page 159)

Avoid lists; if you have to use them, place the explanation of the list before it rather than after (in order to help the audience grasp the purpose of the list).

Don’t state the obvious; saying police arrived at the scene or that someone was arrested for their crime is the journalist’s equivalent of calling something an ATM machine.

Reporting the negative of an outcome; find a way to rephrase it in regards to an action that did occur. For example, saying a deadline was missed, instead of a report was not filed.

“Never exaggerate a lead. If a story is weak, exaggeration will make it look weaker, not stronger.” (page 160)

I think this speaks to something that hasn’t been taught yet; don’t be afraid to decide something isn’t newsworthy, that you don’t have the right level detail, or that a story isn’t working out.

Your lede should also match the tone of your story. In fiction, subversion of expectation is clever; news readers tend not to appreciate it as much.

I really like this one: 7.5.10 is the mistake of following all the rules (page 161). Sometimes you gotta yolo it and it makes something really interesting. Now this is my kind of lesson!

Always remember your audience; prioritize the information they understand already, and provide explanations for the things they wouldn’t.

Finally, never use your first draft. Amen.

The chapter closes with a guest column by Adrian Whitsett, a broadcast reporter local to Cincinnati. He speaks directly to the students reading, warning that he has no idea what the field will look like even in the 4 years it takes them to graduate. I most appreciated this lesson he imparts:

“The stories you tell will stay with you long after your live shot. There will be days where the pendulum of emotion swings sharply back from adrenaline to sorrow. Don’t be afraid to feel and don’t be afraid to share it with the characters in your story.” (Page 162)

I think I’d get a beer with that guy. I mean, I don’t like beer, but…whatever, you get what I mean.

Chapter 8 – Alternate Leads

This is a chapter on soft leads; anything that deviates from the who-what-where-when-why-how format (or summary lead). They’re most often followed by a nut graph.

Page 180 discusses criticism to the use of soft leads as unprofessional or pretentious. It seems like the jury is still out on these in general. The Wall Street Journal is noted as one of the first papers to try it out, in the 40’s, which as a development predates New Journalism by a couple of decades.

They talk a bit about using buried leads intentionally, cautioning that journalists need to break rules with intention.

Multi-paragraph leads use a lead as a “unit of thought”.

Quotation leads are frowned upon; I know this from other books, but times change I guess because they offer it here as a legitimate choice. The problem, according to the authors, is that sources rarely provide quotes that properly summarize the story while remaining brief. People just don’t talk like that. (page 183) Basically, you should use if you just so happen to receive a quote that is so effective at illustrating your central point, that you can’t write it better yourself.

You also shouldn’t lead with a quote that requires the audiences to guess who pronouns refer to; after all, you haven’t had time to identify the subjects yet.

“Some editors prohibit because they believe news stories should answer questions, not ask them.” (page 184)

I’ll need to chew on that one. I think I agree on the basis that question leads can be really lazy, but is it true that our stories should never ask questions of the reader? I’m not sure about that.

Suspenseful or descriptive leads; the authors don’t really make the distinction but it seems like these are generally more appropriate for soft news. (page 186 – 187)

Okay, from here they’re less useful, they’re just slapping an adjective on a soft lead, but they aren’t really discrete types. I’ll make an exception for “direct address” leads, in which the reader is acknowledged. (page 188)

Guest column for this chapter is by Mary Grace Keller, who says no story is too small for consideration. I sometimes gaslight myself about this so it’s nice to have a counterbalance.

Chapter 9 – The Body of a News Story

The inverted pyramid; a broad lead on the most important information that becomes more specific as the story progresses. Unique to this modern textbook, they take a bit of time to talk about the disadvantages (page 196):

• Facts may end up repeated
• It is rarely surprising
• It was developed for newspapers, and so it doesn’t necessarily fit for newer mediums
• “Readers with less than a high school education cannot easily understand stories written in this style”. Citation needed for this claim but I can see it.
• It locks reporters into a specific style and that’s frustrating unto itself.

It sounds like the inverted pyramid might be falling out of style, although they don’t go into specifics about how widely it is discouraged.

Leapfrogging: the apparently common mistake of introducing an individual in the lead, then addressing them by name in the second paragraph, without establishing they’re the same person.

Mistake I’ve definitely made: too much space dedicated to presenting source or subject names, which buries the action. (page 201)

“Kicker” has two definitions: either an additional line above the main head of a story that draws attention, or it’s the ending of the story itself. It looks like both are used and in the biz you figure it out from context clues.

Authors recommend ending on something dramatic to leave an impression. (page 202)

Note on syntactical parallelism when writing lists (page 206). Make sure to keep them consistent.

Authors attribute the hourglass structure to Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter institute, who sought to resolve the homogenization of news stories (events of different urgency all read as the same). (page 206)

They identify its components as the inverted pyramid on top, the “turn” or “pivot” paragraph, and then a chronological conclusion. It lets in a bit of the narrative structure at the point at which the obligation for hard news has been fulfilled. This has so far been my preferred structure, with some tweaks.

Clark advises that this story is best used when there is a clear chronological structure to events.

Wall street journal formula detailed on page 208-209. They call it the “Focus style”, and name the parts a bit more specifically than I’ve seen elsewhere, which I appreciate; the lead (which is unique in this case for potentially being up to three paragraphs), the nut graph (again, could be 2-3) that defines the central point or thesis, the body, and the kicker.

They recommend it for soft news pieces, which I fully agree with as it has some of the fluffier prose.

Narrative style

I was surprised to see this at all; it’s a departure from other texts which not only advise against it, but almost seem afraid to name it. Let’s see what we’ve got here. (page 210)

They have some trouble defining its parts beyond beginning, middle, and end, because of how widely they can vary. This makes sense, since they draw from a broad pool of fiction techniques including flashbacks, dialogue, and chronology twists.

Authors say these stories tend to be much longer, which also makes sense. They’re more open to the use of figurative language and descriptive prose for this style; they spend some time defining those for students new to the concept. Most of this section is devoted to neutrally defining and demonstrating how to write a narrative.

Here’s the only bit where they weigh in on when to use it as a tool:

“Narrative style can be a refreshing change…but it is not appropriate for all stories. Stories about breaking news events… often make more sense to readers when told in traditional inverted-pyramid fashion. Narrative touches… can make any story more readable, however… the succeeds of a narrative story depends on the depth of the reporting. A writer who has not attentively gathered details and quotations will have difficulty constructing a narrative story.” (page 213)

I’m fascinated and my expectations have definitely be subverted. They’re much, much less down on this style in modern textbooks than the old stuffy ones I’ve been reading. And on one hand, I love that; I was a fiction writer first.

On the other, I’ve done my homework. I’ve already read works like the Journalist and the Murderer, and seen the toll that this type of story has had on audience trust. Is this a solved problem, or a forgotten one? I also wonder how senior editors would respond to this section. I wish I had a few to interview. I’d really like to get to the bottom of the industry’s feelings on this structure for video three, but it could come up in video 2 more naturally.

Okay, moving on:

Reporters need to be aware of what terms their audience will be familiar with, and whether concepts need to be defined. (page 214) This is not just a matter of catering to that audience further, but an opportunity to expand it. The authors don’t really talk about that but that’s okay, they’re not psychic, my brain is noisy.

One of the most valuable services of a journalist is making the complex understandable. This is alluded to in the chapter, but I believe it so fervently as to make it part of my own personal principles; there is no concept too complex for me to synthesize. I am particularly experienced in this due to my tech background; rapidly learning a new “beat” and then explaining it to newcomers was my whole thing.

They also recommend providing context for big numbers. Human brains are weird, we might not grasp the magnitude of large ones. But you also have to be careful not to talk down to your audience. This is where the “that’s X number of football fields” cliche comes from. Find something else to compare it to. I’m a fan of picking absolutely ridiculous things that are still visually evocative, just a surprise joke to hit the reader out of nowhere.

(It’s so good not to have a boss.)

Authors provide three ways to define unfamiliar terms (page 215):

• Explanation in parenthesis, like: the intruder used an API (the language two programs use to talk to each other) in order to access…
• Placing the explanation directly after the unfamiliar term, like: the intruder used an API, or application programming interface, in order to access…
• Place the explanation in the very next sentence, like: the intruder used an API to access the information. An API is the language that two programs use to talk to each other.

They go on to recommend finding examples of complex issues, to help readers connect with your story more. Especially if they illustrate a trend.

You can also clarify by drawing comparisons to things more likely to be understood already. This example from Paul Krugman (page 216) explains unethical behavior of mutual fund managers:

“You’re selling your house, and your real estate agent claims that he’s representing your interests. But he sells the property at less than fair value to a friend, who resells it at a substantial profit, on which the agent receives a kickback. You complain tot he county attorney. But he gets big campaign contributions from the agent, so he pays no attention. That, in essence, is the story of the growing mutual fund scandal.”

I love that example. It’s clear and succinct.

The authors describe a weakness of reporters; reluctance to provide descriptions. This is probably due to the conflicting interest of not editorializing. They urge students to find appropriate, objective means by which to describe sights, sounds, smells, and the experiences a reporter notices in their body. (page 216) I like this advice.

Adjectives and adverbs are the enemy. Look for stronger nouns and verbs.

They circle back to physical descriptions of people, which are riskier and might be better avoided IMO. Specifically, they warn about using gendered language, and recommend flipping the gender of the subject as a test to see if you’re being an asshole about it. (page 218)

9.9 The need to be fair

“Reporters who write about a controversy should present every significant viewpoint fully and fairly.” (page 218, emphasis mine)

Wish they went a little further on that; they say only that a story should be “balanced, fair, and accurate”, and balance gets dangerous. See: TERF island, the view from nowhere, golden mean fallacy.

They reference (but do not define) the right of final reply here. They say the New York Times has a policy that anyone covered negatively must be given the ability to respond, or the story should be postponed. If it can’t be postponed, then the attempt to contact that party must be included in the story. The authors note this policy is “unbreakable” there.

I find it odd that they phrase it this way because my understanding is this is basically industry-wide best practice, if for no other reason than legal defense. I hope they provide some guidance later on how to format those letters, I could use a hand on that.

They end with a plea to not be precious with your work, find a copyeditor and respect their feedback. Good advice for students.

Chapter 10 – Quotations and Attributions

There are three types of quotation; direct, indirect, and partial. Direct quotation is exactly what you’d expect; the source’s exact words, placed in quotation marks. Indirect quotes do not use quotation marks, and are summaries by the reporter. Partial quotations directly quote some key portion of the interview, and then summarize the rest. These are the type I’m using for most of these notes.

Use direct quotes when the source has said something really unique that you cannot realistically improve on. If it contains a lot of emotion, demonstrates their character (and they’re important to the story), or echoes the central theme of your piece, it’s a good candidate.

You should also use them to tie a particularly controversial opinion to a specific human, or as evidence for a claim.

Don’t use them to just repeat a point you’ve already made; that’s repetitive. You’ve probably laughed at a similar delivery in a comedy special before: Critics are saying MOVIE: THE SEQUEL is the best film ever. “I’m a critic and I think MOVIE: the Sequel is the best film ever!”

“Reporters may be tempted to use whatever quotations happen to be available, but a weak quotation is worse than none.” (page 231)

In the (more likely) case that a source is not particularly charismatic or clear, use indirect quotations to summarize what was said. You can revise or eliminate parts of testimony that are “unclear, irrelevant, libelous, pretentious, or otherwise unprintable”. (page 231)

Printing exactly what was said is not a good excuse for using weak quotations; in the best case scenario, it merely indicates you didn’t ask good enough questions.

Don’t let sources praise themselves.

The authors use Trump’s “nuclear” speech as an example of something that is too much “word salad” to print. This is a good example of where to use indirect quotes, although I’ll add one caveat; in this case it was so incredibly unclear, that that itself could be news.

The authors advise against partial quotations at all on the basis that they’re distracting or awkward. They also define “orphan” quotes as ones which use quotation marks around just one or two words; like I just did. It runs the risk of seeming “sarcastic”. (see what I did there)

There are some situations where it’s okay to break this rule; use your best judgment and be mindful of your tone.

The authors are wishy washy on this point, but you should never allow a source to approve your quotations. They can submit a correction if they think you fucked up, but it’s your job to parse and present these. It will only hurt your credibility to allow a source to influence your decision making process in this way.

If you find yourself having to make [edits like this] to quotes in excess, you probably need to re-arrange the information in your story so that it’s less necessary.

They argue on page 235 that reporters shouldn’t feel the need to share the question that was asked. (page 235) This is contrary to how I do things, but for a different reason. They’re talking about examples like “Asked about the topic of X, subject responded Y”, which I agree is unnecessary.

What I hypothesize will shift in the next generation or so, is sharing lists of questions that sources refused to answer, in order to combat PR firms controlling narratives and doing damage control on the news.

“Whether writers should ever change a quotation is a matter of debate among journalists. Some accept minor changes to correct grammatical errors or delete profanity. Most, however, say reporters should never change quotations.” (page 235)

This definitely has to be in the video.

The AP and NYT claim that they will never clean up quotations, and only use ellipses when absolutely necessary. The authors recommend opting for indirect quotations in situations in which someone’s grammar is so messy as to become incomprehensible. This helps protect you for legal reasons.

I can see some situations in which it might be acceptable to clean up grammar; if someone speaks English as a second language, has a lisp, or a stutter, leaving it exactly as spoken could damage their credibility unfairly.

(As a side note this book doesn’t use the Oxford comma, which annoys me so much I’ve been adding it in)

Ellipses (three periods in succession) are most often used to omit portions of official documents, but professional guidelines vary. (page 236)

Be careful not to omit context which, in its omission, changes the source’s meaning or position. This is a deceptive practice. Honestly it’s still done in news ALL the time. :/

On profanity; organizations are split on whether to omit them. There’s the think-of-the-children argument, but also, it can be newsworthy when officials say something inappropriate.

The book doesn’t go into explicit detail on your options, but based on my reading you have four options, and none of them are necessarily better than the other. Each one can be gamed by a source. Those options are:

• Print exactly what was said. + Most accurate. – Not appropriate for all audiences.
• Censoring. + Less objectionable. + Still technically accurate. – Softens the impact. -Sometimes ambiguous.
• Rephrasing. + Unobjectionable. – Allows you or the source to whitewash.
• Omitting. + Unobjectionable. + Debatably professional. – Inaccurate to the point of dishonesty.

This isn’t a problem to me personally; I’m going to print exactly what was said in most cases. I’m not worried about kids reading bad words in the news; if that’s real life, they should be able to read it. Racial slurs are another matter; I’m uncomfortable printing them, but I also understand that my objections to the rephrase / omit approaches would also qualify there. I wonder if I can provide a spoiler-tool? That might be a nice middle ground.

This is also a place where digital news could innovate. Dynamic spoiler tags weren’t possible in newspapers. Well, I guess if you did like, a scratch and sniff. Lol. (This would make a good visual gag for a video)

Page 237-238 has a good point; its possible to accidentally editorialize through your choice of quotation. The indirect quote they use, “the mayor clearly expressed X”, contains an implication that the mayor was eloquent or delivered the idea unambiguously.

On attribution:

“Reporters can attribute information to people, documents, or publications, but not to places or institutions.” (page 238)

That’s good practice. To do otherwise allows individuals to dodge accountability. I think in the future we’ll need to modify these rules to account for automated systems like LLM’s, which will absolutely be used to shield people.

“Reporters need not attribute undisputed facts… nor must they attribute things they witness. However, they must attribute facts that are not common knowledge, statements about controversial issues, statements of opinion, and all direct and indirect quotations.” (page 238)

All praise and criticism needs attribution, and it should be immediately obvious who is speaking and their relationship to the subject.

Place the attribution as early as is convenient, and try not to break up a thought with it. Repeat attributions every time the speaker changes.

In the case of indirect quotations, every claim should be individually attributed so it is clear what the reporter has verified, and what they have not.

On level of detail: for most news stories, you want to provide first and last name, title, and organization.

The format for witnesses is traditionally first name, last name, age, and address (if they live in the same city) or hometown (if they don’t). The authors acknowledge people don’t want to provide these details anymore, and depending on context I’d feel gross asking for it. You’ve got to at least get a name; in the absence of the other bits, find some detail that explains why they’re involved in the story.

They provide a basic explanation for why sources on some beats might legitimately request anonymity, and provide definitions for “on background” and “not for attribution”, in which the relationship to the story is used in lieu of a name (“a law enforcement officer who is not authorized to speak on the record…”)

The authors also provide common policies for dealing with anonymous sources; this list is a little less full than the AP styleguide.

• Don’t use them without authorization from your editor.
• Be prepared to disclose their identity to your editor or lawyer
• Only use them if they provide facts that are essential to the story, and can’t be obtained any other way.
• Don’t use them for opinions
• Make sure to investigate their motives
• Provide as specific a description as you can without burning them, so readers can evaluate if they think they are credible.
• Explain why they don’t want to be identified.
• Never allow them to attack other individuals or groups; if you want to criticize someone, it ought to be on the record, or you’re taking a big legal risk.

Chapter 11 – Interviewing

The authors provide three different types of interviews, or rather stories which contain interviews. Your motivation will determine the questions you prepare. (page 250)

For a news story, a reporter collects a handful of simple facts from multiple sources, to make sure they match. This includes:

• Dates, names, locations, costs
• Chronology
• Relationships among the people / organizations / issues named
• Context and perspective
• Anecdotes that are relevant and / or sufficiently dramatic
• Quotations
  

A feature story (human interest and other soft news) adds four more categories of things to collect:

• The environment in which the subject lives or works
• How they appear or dress (this is a little contradictory to earlier but, eh.)
• The subject’s mannerisms
• Smells, sounds, and textures associated with the subjects home or work. I would expand this to include other settings relevant to the story.

Finally, in investigative pieces, they instruct you to collect:

• The subject’s version of events and how it differs from other things in the record
• Explanations of contradictions
• The subjects replies to all charges and allegations.

Sometimes the best interview subject is a document rather than a person.

If you have the luxury of time, you should interview a variety of sources every time. (page 253) The authors echo the “documents state of mind” instructions from the IRE handbook, in that doing a document dive before talking to any human will better prepare you to ask the right questions.

“When choosing interview subjects, reporters should never let any organization… make its public relations person the scapegoat. Tony Kovaleski, an investigative reporter for KMGH-Channel 7 in Denver, said the job of a reporter is to hold accountable the real decision maker, not the PR person.” (page 253)

The number of sources you need for a story will be impacted by how controversial or complex it is. The authors also concede that the pressure to publish causes reporters to accept lower numbers of sources than would otherwise be ideal.

“A long-standing problem in journalism is a lack of diversity in the newsroom and in the sources used in news stories.” (page 254) Yeah, tell me about it.

According to the AP, a reporter should “cast a wide net” and “focus on individuals”. The former means considering places to find sources beyond what is obvious or traditional; looking specifically for experts at a historically Black college rather than the State university they’re used to relying on, for example. The latter means looking for voices that are often ignored; inflation stories often consult business owners, but what about retail workers?

They plug a database called Diverse Sources (diversesources.org) for “young reporters seeking new sources”. (page 254) Why do they always use sexual assault as the example?

They also mention “Help a Reporter Out” (helpareporter.com) or HARO, which matches journalists to sources. That sounds like a neat tool, I’ll have to check it out.

The last one they mention is “Diverse Databases” by an organization called Editors of Color. (editorsofcolor.com/diverse-databases). It provides experts of historically marginalized identities.

Steps of interview prep: (page 255)

1. Define the purpose; is it news, a feature, or an investigative interview? What information is necessary for the story? (5W’s and H, and beyond)
2. Decide who to interview
3. Assess their character. Consider their motives, conflicts of interest, and expertise.
4. Decide what questions you’re going to ask
5. Anticipate possible answers and prepare followup questions.

Several more sections of this book just repeat “be prepared” without contributing much of substance.

The authors agree with our previous works that you should ask open-ended questions rather than yes-no ones. (page 256) Oh hey, they also reference Sawatsky, we’ve seen his name before!

Sawatsky prefers questions which are “short” and “neutral”, primarily beginning with “what”, “how”, and “why”. Avoid questions which imply you’ve made a decision about something, so that you don’t put a source in a place where they avoid contradicting you.

“When interviewees have a story to tell, such as how they survived a plane crash or what happened during a bank robbery, reporters should simply let them talk. Something like ‘tell me what happened to you’ might be enough to encourage people to tell their story as they remember it. As interviewees talk, journalists should listen carefully. They might think of questions as the subject tells the story, but they should not interrupt… wait until the interviewee has finished and then ask any specific follow-up questions.” (page 257)

I recently saw John Stewart mess this up. It was really noticeable how he interrupted the FTC chair every couple of words; controlling the flow of an interview is important but if you overdo it, you don’t get the information you asked for.

If someone’s answer is vague, ask for clarification, anecdotes, or examples.

Pick a location for the interview that makes the subject comfortable. It shouldn’t be too busy or noisy. Avoid lunches because they come with many interruptions, and it’ll get expensive fast since you have to pay for all your own stuff.

Eric Nalder, retired investigative reporter, likes meeting them at work or home because you can get information from their environment. Clever. (page 257-258).

Arrive early, don’t make it last longer than you agreed to, and dress appropriately. That last one was odd, they suggest business clothes. I think it depends who you’re interviewing.

Open the interview by restating your purpose. Longer interviews can have some small talk. Keep the interviewee on track, and bring them back to your question or central idea if they meander or intentionally evade you.

They provide an “interview funnel” of most general to most specific questions, and recommend you group them by topic. It might be logical to group them chronologically for timelines, or subject matter in other cases. Sometimes you should let them come up organically, but make sure you know what you’re doing when you do this and pull them back to fit your needs if it goes off the rails.

Martha Mendoza practices interviews by roleplaying with their editor. Robert Cribb of the Toronto Star prepares a flow chart to anticipate possible answers. (page 259)

Hold your most objectionable questions toward they end, so if they walk out you still got something you can use. It also increases the odds they’re comfortable enough to answer them to begin with.

Ideally you’ve prepared well enough to mitigate unpleasant surprises, but keep an eye out for newsworthy surprises that are worth risking the pivot to. I think this comes back to being open to the idea that your understanding of the story might change even mid-interview.

Always ask if they have anything to add, or for other people they should contact or things they should read. (page 260) I’m glad this is becoming more common, it’s probably the best advice I’ve ever read. They also recommend asking for the best time / method of follow up contact, and thanking them for your time.

Here’s a list of interview traps:

• Don’t make statements; just ask questions. People who believe you’re biased will just clam up.
• Don’t ask double-barreled questions, which have multiple answers. They give the example of asking Clinton “Was Gennifer Flowers your lover for 12 years”, and he answered “that allegation is false”. But which part specifically? It lets them weasel out and is just bad form.
• Don’t use loaded words that might turn the interviewee off or suggest antagonism.
• Be careful not to ask questions that suggest a specific answer or detail; like a cop looking for a confession, they might agree with information you’ve added just to avoid the discomfort of contradicting you.

If your subject is reluctant to speak, you should ask them why and see how you can adapt to ease that fear (even if it’s warranted).

“Lawrence Grobel has said, “to be a good interviewer, you have to become a chameleon, changing the colors of your personality to fit the mood of the person you are interviewing.” (page 260)

If they’re afraid of being misunderstood, you can demonstrate that you’ve done some homework. If they’re worried about consequences, you can re-iterate speaking terms or point out that they’ll have the opportunity to respond, and retaliatory action would look bad for them.

They provide these tips for appearing more neutral when asking difficult or embarrassing questions:

• Attribute the qeustion or point of view to a third party, or public opinion generally, and allow them to respond.
• Sugarcoating. I’d be careful with this one, if you don’t follow up then you’ve done a softball interview.
• Ask them to explain their previous statements as an in, or give their version of a controversy
• Show them what you know already; this is also a police tactic, and is probably best suited for investigative interviews.
• Ask them to talk about others, then shift them to the less comfortable subject.
• Ask them for the names of people who support or criticize them, and then ask what those people might say about them. This not only loosens lips but gives you more people to follow up with.
• “Sometimes the best approach is to simply ask the question, no matter how blunt or embarrassing it might be. Stephanie Lee, who reported on science for Buzzfeed, says when she has to ask a question about allegations of wrongdoing or impropriety, she writes the question out verbatim. Formulating an accusatory question on the spur of the moment can be difficult.” (page 261)
• Reporters should be persistent. If they get pissed and rage quit, go back tomorrow.

If someone tries to lie or is evasive, you can:

• Restate the question.
• Point out that you noticed the evasion and will have to report on that.
• Remain silent, the ultimate power move.

The authors recommend an article by Eric Nalder, retired reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I think I’ve heard his name before. Anyway, it’s called “Loosening Lips: The Art of the Interview”. An example they give is letting a liar just spin the lie, and asking only for elaboration, before springing the trap shut. I’ll need to read this article later. I think I recognize the name, too.

It’s listed here on the IRE shop for $0.00? And here on ijnet, attributed to anonymous (but names Nalder at the bottom anyway). That one is incomplete. I eventually managed to track down the full version for free.

Sample interview with Bill Cosby on page 263. They open with “This question gives me no pleasure, Mr. Cosby, but there have been some serious allegations raised about you in recent days”. They are met with silence; they ask the question multiple times. “I’m in the news business… I have to ask the question… I want to give you the chance [to respond].” Honestly, it’s pretty masterful control. It allows the silence and for the subject to damn themselves with it.

The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma provides resources for interviewing folks who have undergone something traumatic. The authors reproduce three basic tips (treat them with dignity and respect, identify yourself and your intentions clearly, don’t be condescending or patronizing). (Page 262)

Reporting on trauma is a place to bend the “control the interview” rule. Make sure you pick a place that not only is safe, but feels safe to the subject. You can also let them know they’re in control of when the interview ends. Give them space to respond emotionally. Verify what you hear with first responders, since it can be difficult to accurately recall traumatizing events.

You need to get parent or guardian support to interview kids, and they’ll come with their own unique difficulties in regards to memory, vocabulary, emotional regulation, and attention span. It’s vital to supplement these with documentation to the extent you can.

One change from older texts is that telephone interviews are considered suboptimal. They’re prone to phone-tag, are generally shorter, and difficult to conduct on complex or controversial topics. Its also harder to get people to talk about embarrassing stuff. (Page 264)

They have some thoughts on email interviews; scheduling is convenient, but it gives the subject too much time to carefully construct a PR-approved response. It also deprives you of social cues, and technically you can’t prove who you’re talking to. (they could just pass the keyboard)

This is the first book to acknowledge teleconferencing, which removes most of the weaknesses of other alternative options but subjects you to connection issues and potential WFH distractions.

On broadcast interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR says that they’re unique because “the interview is the [whole] piece”. (page 265)

List of telephone and email etiquette:

• Identify yourself / your org first.
• Don’t pose as anyone else (debatable)
• Ask permission to record

For emails specifically:

• Use a salutation (uh okay)
• Identify yourself
• Review the background of the event
• Tell sources their deadline
• Thank them
• Dont use all caps? (lol?)
• No acronyms. (I’m not sure even students need this advice but, I’m not a teacher.)

They allude to interview note shorthand but don’t really go into it. They also advise you review and use them immediately. Write down everything because you might not recognize the significance of a statement in the moment

You should digitally record your interviews if you can, but even in those cases you should take physical notes to help you direct you to important sections and ideas. (especially if the recording is really long).

Consult your State laws before attempting surreptitious recording, and know that audiences frown upon it in a lot of cases.

Practice makes perfect (page 267). Terry Gross says use what you’ve got; if it’s not experience, then curiosity, research, or even confusion. Just give it a go.

Finally, they note the alternative Q&A style, though they don’t seem super hot on it.

Guest columnists William Cote and Bonnie Bucqueroux give a handful of tips for interviewing victims, from Michigan State University School of Journalism. (page 268-269)

• Give the subject control; one idea is to even let them turn off the tape recorder. Ask them for consent to ask a difficult question, or give them some other kinda heads up.
• Manage first impressions; don’t ambush folks.
• They suggest a Miranda warning for journalists; you have the right to _.
• Consider that you may be the first to give them bad news. This is kinda true for Ian Tomlinson, right? The family knew already, but the police hadn’t contacted the family like they said they had. If you have the option, you might consider bringing a peer. (the military does this when someone beefs it)
• Ask for consent on basically everything.
• Be careful with your language; some safe phrases today include “I’m sorry this happened”, “I’m glad you weren’t killed”, and “It’s not your fault”.
• “I know how you feel” is well intentioned, but you probably don’t.
• Be extra sure everything you print is accurate, or you’ll re-open a wound.
• Be extra cautious not to imply fault, and consider that your audience might try to read it that way.
• Make sure your headline and photo don’t undo all of that care and nuance, in the final product.

Chapter 12 – Feature Stories

Feature ideas can come from anywhere. They provide a grid exercise, where each grid corresponds to a broad story topic (like Covid); the x axis lists elements of daily life such as work, home, school, etc, and the y axis age demographics. Each intersection could be a story. (page 277-278).

Really what I take from this is the “no story is too small” idea from the earlier chapter. Let’s write about some chickens; as long as you’re curious, anything goes.

Summarizing some 101 composition advice; use sensory language, support the narrative with quotes, make sure everything in the story relates to a central theme. Use data/statistics to back up arguments. (page 279 – 284)

Overall, soft news/features provide more leeway to use creative writing techniques.

They give examples of “types of features” that are really more topics. I don’t think most of this information is useful, beyond “different subject matter is best supported with different types of information, consider your story’s needs carefully. Could really take out an entire chapter and replace it with that.

Guest column is also content lite; the headline is “Writing about celebrities without getting star struck”. It’s mostly name dropping for a few paragraphs, then a bulleted list of generic advice (one of which is repeating the headline).

This was a particularly weak chapter. Tsk tsk.

Chapter 13 – Writing for Broadcast News

Okay, I’m looking forward to this one; it should be entirely new information.

For our purposes, broadcast media encompasses both TV as you would expect, and formats like podcasts / videos / livestreams.

Initially the considerations for print and broadcast journalists are identical; they use similar principles to select and produce their stories.

Broadcast news stories are often in present rather than past tense. Their leads are shorter, focusing on a single fact, and the language used throughout the story is permitted to be more conversational. Attribution tends to be reversed (since we usually say who said what, in that order) and quotations are a little trickier to manage since they cannot be seen. (page 300)

The authors claim that people tend to miss the first few words of a story, mentally tuning in when they hear something of interest.

Stories are often rewritten multiple times throughout the day; leads especially, in order to cater to listeners who have been listening since the story broke in search of an update.

They also give examples of scripts provided to broadcast anchors, which apparently include pronunciation. That makes a lot of sense, I just hadn’t considered it.

There are four common types of broadcast lead:

The “hard” lead gives important information immediately, and closely resembles a print lead.

I wish this part had a source:

“However, some broadcasters believe the significant facts are gone before audiences realize they need to “tune in” to what is being said.” (page 301)

The soft lead tells the audience the theme of an upcoming story, to grab their attention, without giving specific details. It’s a way of signaling “HEY THIS NEXT STORY IS GOING TO BE ABOUT A ROBBERY” or whatever.

The “throwaway” lead exists purely to grab attention; if it was removed from the story, it would not impact its accuracy. The main difference from the “soft” lead is that it is conversational, and precedes a second, “real” lead. (“Eat your heart out, Lassie, there’s a new dog hero on the block… a three-legged terrier saved a baby from a burning building this weekend…”).

I guess I understand the perspective of “the viewer wasn’t listening”, especially given how often I multitask, but I can’t shake the sense that it’s a little condescending, too.

The “umbrella” lead provides connecting tissue for two or more related stories. (Basically, “heads up, we’re gonna talk about a bunch of separate people who got rabies today”).

The authors advise against the inverted pyramid for broadcast writing; the theory is that you need to spread out important information because a listener will only comprehend so much of any individual sentence.

The most common bodies are therefore the regular pyramid, or the “wine glass”, which is a new one for me.

The pyramid is what it says on the tin, but the wineglass is kind of weird. The structure of that one goes:
Most important / emotional information to catch interest – > important details and expert testimony -> memorable ending. (page 304)

They draw it inside of a wineglass but frankly that shape is arbitrary and the metaphor is a bit tortured.

They also claim that most news stories are timed before they air, to ensure important facts don’t get cut out by breaks or whatever. The entire story could be as short as 30-60 seconds; they do not give an average length yet.

The theory is that when someone stops listening to a story, they’ve probably left the broadcast entirely, so broadcast reporters want to provide the most important details up-front, while spacing it out with more slack than usual because the viewer cannot re-read parts they didn’t understand.

Facts are given in either descending order of importance, or a chronological order with a narrative format. In the latter case, they’ll often break the chronology to put the ending in the lead, but otherwise stick to the timeline of the event.

Longer stories in broadcast news are likely to use the “focus” or “wall street journal” formula discussed previously. It’s really just a function of time, but I suppose neither is necessarily better than the other. For the same reason I don’t want to watch a youtube tutorial when text will do, not every story can be feature-length. After all, before the internet, you’d have to listen to each one in real time. (depending on your video / audio player, you might be able to fast-forward today, although even that isn’t a given). So yeah, I guess these limitations make sense to me.

Formatting in Broadcast Media

Since they’re being read on-air, notes between reporters and editors need to be kept cleaner for broadcast media. They don’t use print copy editing symbols because, lets face it, they’re often inscrutable.

Traditionally scripts are stored on a teleprompter, but nowadays hosts have access to tablets that allow them to take handwritten notes. This is primarily for directions on their delivery; where to speed up, slow down, etc.

Sentences shouldn’t run from page to page, so that the audience doesn’t hear page shuffling if they’re using a paper copy, and the announcer doesn’t have to pause looking for the rest of it. Everything should have page numbers, because they’re going to fall out of order sometimes and that sucks. Stations use a symbol like (###) to signal that a story is over, sort of like writing STOP at the end of a telegram.

Average margins are 60, with 10 words to a line. Three lines of copy takes an average of 10 seconds to read aloud. 18 full lines is one minute. Sometimes (but not always) the time target is written on the page; places that do this circle it so that the announcer knows not to read it. (page 307)

In addition to the normal redrafting process, a story meant for broadcast media might be rewritten if the announcer stumbles on it a lot; they need to be written to accommodate the flow of human speech. They also confirm in advance that their reading time lines up with the target time, if one is provided.

On page 307, they give something of a range for stories. (10 seconds to 5 minutes, determined largely by type of story and news outlet). A story with no visual elements or interesting audio should run less than a minute. If the story is important, or has those spicy elements, it’ll typically run from one to three minutes.

Broadcasts journalists write scripts after reviewing audio and video captures.

Much like working on a video essay, the visual elements should match or emphasize that point in the script. They’ll also need subtitles for accessibility.

Incorporating video and audio recordings into a piece requires some editing intuition, again I imagine this is similar to video essay work.

Definition of b-roll; supplementary video for the main story, often used while separate audio is playing. Should have a relationship to the audio.

News feeds: audio, text, and video elements provided by wire services like AP and Reuters to be incorporated into a station’s newscasts. Provided on a subscription basis, they fill out the newscast when the station either can’t fill the whole time slot, or can’t personally send someone out to write that story. (page 310) It seems like a result of the shift to 24 hour news; not necessarily a bad thing, but definitely a consequence of it.

Stations tend not to use footage or resources from competitors. When they must do so, it’s courteous to acknowledge who broke that story / recorded those assets.

“[Public relations news releases] are quite helpful on slow news days. Reporters look to them for ideas or additional information about changes within the community, updates on local companies, or to localize a story happening elsewhere. Ideally, the release is regarded as a news tip, to be followed up with research and interviews that incorporate opposing viewpoints. Rarely are news releases objective; they always favor the PR company’s client.” (page 311)

A lot of networks over-rely on these; the “slow news day bit” is really undersold here. It’s a problem.

Interviews work a little different for broadcast reporters. They need to minimize movement to keep their microphones quiet, but also incorporate extra nonverbal communication like head nods and such. The authors say you need to regulate your face so that expressions aren’t misinterpreted as endorsement. I won’t lie, all of this sounds miserable. I love to fidget.

The average interview soundbite is between six to 20 seconds long; the copy should indicate an interview sound bite is coming, but not render it repetitive. (page 311)

Most broadcast organizations rely on a combination of AP style and their own in-house rules. The primary constraint is time.

The target audiences are multitaskers; broadcast reporters are really preoccupied with managing the listener’s attention, again to a degree that seems almost patronizing at times.

Skipping some of the next couple of pages, it’s repeating formatting advice given earlier.

13.7.2 Writing for Your Announcer (page 314)

Here’s how to become friends with the person reading your script:

Add phonetic spelling so they don’t stumble over places and names.

Hyphenate words that go together, even if that isn’t what you’d normally do grammatically. It helps them with intonation and keeping a natural rhythm. I do this sometimes when I script-write.

Spell out numbers smaller than eleven; eleven is chosen because numerically it could look like two lowercase L’s. (they give a cute example; 11 llamas)

For larger numbers, use a combination of words and numbers to help them read it quickly. (65-hundred instead of 6500)

Use full words instead of abbreviations (avenue instead of ave.)

Don’t use periods as decimals (write it out as point-something). They might mistake it for a full stop.

Hyphenate letters or numbers that should be read individually (W-W-A-Y News, or a phone number)

Avoid accidental alliteration, or sentences which are heavy on S’s and plosives (k, t, p, d, g, p). These don’t play well with microphones.

Use limited punctuation (periods, commas, and ellipses) because they “function as a brake”. (page 316)

Never split a word between lines, for the same reason you should avoid splitting sentences between pages.

They close on an almost-warning; broadcast reporting looks glamorous but is “a lot of work”, probably code here for “stressful and fast-moving”. I have enough trouble with being on camera for video essays, so you don’t have to tell me twice.

No guest column for this chapter, which is odd, there are probably lots of broadcast folks to consult for unique advice.

Chapter 14 – Visual Journalism

I like the opening quote:

“There is one thing the photograph must contain, the humanity of the moment.” – Robert Frank (page 321)

I was initially unsure what this chapter would contain but it looks like it’s going to focus on photography, infographics, page layout, etc.

Wow, this chapter is way more historical than previous ones, where was this before??? I like this.

Some Cool History

Chapter opens by describing (but not naming) the Acta Diurna; I only recognize it because I just covered it. I appreciate that they acknowledge Chinese printing pre-dating western printing presses by several centuries.

They credit Louis Daguerre as “the father of modern photography for his invention of the daguerrotype, the first commercially viable photographic system in 1839”. (page 322). Today I learned!

Prior to the 1870’s invention of the half-tone, engravers lost detail when creating copies of pictures. The authors claim that “modern photojournalism” was really took off in the first decades of the 20th century. (page 322) One of the pioneers they cite is Erich Salomon, who worked for the German mag Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung. He was known for taking photos of world leaders.

They credit French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson as the “father of modern photojournalism”, for what they call “street photography”. He worked for Life magazine.

Digital alteration, and failure to verify the authenticity of images, has become a serious problem in modern journalism. A famous example is Time’s alteration of O.J Simpson’s mug shot to make his skin darker. (page 325)

But you can also manipulate visuals without photoshop, simply by choosing what to crop and what to include.

The authors reference the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) for professional standards on this kind of thing, and copy paste from their code of ethics here.

Summarized below:

1. Be accurate and comprehensive in representing subjects.
2. Don’t do staged photo ops.
3. Provide complete context, avoid stereotyping, and work to recognize and avoid your own biases.
4. Treat everyone with respect and dignity, especially vulnerable subjects. Don’t intrude on grief unless the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
5. Do not contribute to, alter, or seek to influence events you’re photographing.
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the original image.
7. Don’t pay anyone
8. Don’t accept gifts
9. Don’t sabotage others.

According to the authors, these things are generally acceptable in the industry:

• Correcting exposure problems
• Cropping out background elements that are truly irrelevant
• Removing red-eye effects
• Other minor cosmetic changes that do not materially impact what’s being depicted

Composite images are only acceptable if their use is disclosed, but the authors give an example where even that disclosure wasn’t enough. You probably just shouldn’t do it. (page 326)

The internet has changed a couple of things about how photos can be used in a story. Space is now functionally unlimited; both in terms of storage, and because slideshows allow multiple images to occupy the same space. Thumbnails contribute to attention-grabbing; the headline no longer has to carry all the weight.

According to the authors, photos should be 72 ppi to display properly, without taxing the end user’s connection. Magazines and other print mediums need higher resolutions by default, though, so you might end up saving and archiving multiple copies of seemingly the same image to optimize your work for each format. (Magazines usually require 300 ppi)

They provide some basic photography advice, which is good because I have no idea what I’m doing: (page 328)

• Be mindful of cameras which adjust focus automatically, and ensure it’s focused on the face of the primary subject.
• Keep the camera as steady as possible
• Always take shots from multiple angles. Shooting high or low adds drama. At least use a slight angle to create depth, which will be flattened by the camera more than you expect.
• Close ups and medium shots are preferred in the industry. Panoramic scenes are complementary.
• Try to capture action and motion.
• Beware of “mergers”; things that, when the image is flattened, seem to combine in the image.

Some basic photoshop tips are included, too:

• Never overwrite the original
• Crop out unwanted background elements, but don’t change the meaning of the photo.
• They repeat the resolution advice again.
• Web photos should usually be JPEG’s; photos for print should be TIFF’s, but those are much bigger. Don’t change the resolution of the source image, or continually edit over a JPEG, because each time you do it compresses it again and you lose detail. (this is a moot point these days because you’re probably making edits to a separate PSD)
• You’ll need to tweak exposure between web and print, because the backlight vs ink distinction will throw it off. On average, print stuff needs to be lightened as much as 20-30 percent.

When filming video, try to plan in advance to the extent that you can (sometimes breaking news doesn’t allow for that). Strive to vary angles and distance to keep it from getting boring, and take more than you need in case you want b-roll for later. (page 331)

Avoid zooming or panning; it’s just really hard to capture these movements clearly, and is better to stop recording and begin again from the new position.

When recording audio, always provide multiple takes so the editor has options. If you’re recording sound effects, do this from multiple locations, too.

For podcasts and the like, do your smalltalk before you record to help your subject relax. They give some basic tips on using Audacity to clean audio up.

Chapter 15 – Speeches and Meetings

“Advance stories” alert the public to upcoming speeches or meetings, and are usually published the day it’s announced/scheduled, and again a day or two before the actual event.

Those stories should talk about what is important or unusual about it, not just that it’s happening. You aren’t iCalendar. But you do want to share if it’s open or closed and how to attend.

To make sure you capture all of the necessary context, you should do research on the meeting before you show up. They might not provide that context in the moment. Seek out the agenda as early as you can. (page 341)

You can ask for a press contact in case something unexpected comes up, so you can ask follow-up questions.

If you can, try to get advance copies of the speech, and if there’s no press-conference for reporter’s questions, see if you can ask a quick one after the speech.

The authors provide some common steps for covering speeches and government meetings (page 342):

• Arrive early
• Find good seats where you can see and hear
• Learn everyone’s names
• Introduce yourself to speakers if you have a chance. This helps get a foot in the door for followup questions and builds rapport.
• Figure out if follow up questions are allowed.
• Take detailed notes.
• Brainstorm who might have a different point of view or be affected by the decisions made, so you can interview them too.

A “Follow story” is a detailed report on an event after it happens. Since a single meeting or speech can cover multiple topics, you’ll have to use your professional judgment to identify the through-line, and the bits your audience will find most newsworthy.

You can disregard chronology for the most part; you don’t need to cover everything in the order they came up. As any tech employee will tell you, just because you spend forever on something doesn’t mean it’s that much more important, either. Basically, you’re suffering so the reader doesn’t have to.

After an official event, you’ve got some homework to do; verifying what was said. They name-drop Politifact and Factcheck.org, and note that “politicians are an endless source of misinformation”. (page 351) If you’re covering something local, it probably won’t rise to the level of those sites; you have to be able to fact-check things yourself.

Keep an ear out for the reactions of non-participants to meetings; sometimes they are newsworthy on their own. School board meetings are a good example of this. Lately government bodies have been preventing public comment; the outcry is something you should cover, even if it’s not officially part of the agenda.

“School curriculum dealing with race and sex can also arouse passions.” (page 353) This is such an understatement as to border euphemism.

Chapter 16 – Brights, Follow-Ups, Roundups, Sidebars, and Obituaries

Brights are short, humorous stories with a happy or surprising ending, which break up the non-stop chaos and depravity of modern news.

These are basically the only ones where you’re allowed to withhold information to surprise the reader. Stories that do so are also called “suspended interest stories”.

They call out that these are often stories about animals; I made that joke a few sections ago!

Take care not to disrespect people who may have been harmed by turning their misfortune into a bright. (page 368)

Follow-ups or “developing” stories are ones which evolve over multiple days. They should emphasize what has changed since the last time it was reported on, and save the broader context for last. The AP is full of stories like this on common topics (like anything posted about Trump).

Running follow-up stories also helps reduce parachute-journalism.

“Roundups” group stories that have a common theme, but aren’t big enough to warrant a story of their own. Group them by subject matter rather than source, to cut down repetition.

“Sidebars” are supplementary stories that describe something related to a main event. They’re separate units of news; I know it sounds like they’re describing a visual element on a page but in this case that’s not right.

Sidebars are often used to pursue multiple angles for one story, or to give a national story a local touch. They’re usually published within view of the main story (in print media) and are shorter.

Obituaries are an interesting relic of newspapers of old; we still print them, but they’re increasingly provided by funeral homes. They cost money to include. We used to do them for everyone at a local level but not so much anymore. They’ve also become snarkier over time.

There are a couple of different kinds of obituaries, with only some of which being written by journalists. These include the biographical obituary, and the feature obituary.

The authors give the advice that “obituaries are about life, not death” (page 378).

I’m sort of skimming over this bit because I’m not terribly interested and will probably never write one of these.

Chapter 17 – Public Affairs Reporting

This chapter opens with a few pages of examples of stories about local-level government policy, and also uses some space to discuss the distinction between different levels of government and the sorts of things a journalist is likely to cover.

It seems unavoidable that a journalist covering public policy is going to have to get real comfortable with doing math, real fast. There’s a lot of verifying budgets involved.

The authors repeat advice that was somewhat sheepishly given in previous texts, this time matter of factly; journalists should become good friends with assistants, staff members, and secretaries. They’re easier to get a hold of than other officials, are more likely to be helpful, and can point you toward documentation you need. (page 391)

They also note that local officials are prone to wanting to control the flow of information, and it’s not unusual for them to want to avoid press coverage at all. (This is deffo my experience in Seattle.)

Side note, 391 has a fun example of a corrupt sheriff committing an arms sale felony and getting a drastically reduced sentence for it. I’m shocked. SHOCKED.

This note caught my attention:

“For generations, local governments kept their records on paper. Now those records are stored on computers. This has created both problems and opportunities for reporters. Most states consider records public whether they are in electronic or paper form. However, states differ on whether journalists and citizens are able to get copies of records in electronic form. The difference is important because reporters can analyze data that are available in electronic form in ways that would be impossible with paper documents.” (page 391)

I’m connecting this to the observation in earlier textbooks that database access is increasingly becoming pay-to-play. I think there’s definitely some commercial interest here as well, but in the case of government record this seems to be the more likely influence.

Table 17.1 – Local Government Documents: This table provides a list of documents that are routinely useful for journalists on this beat, and what you might use them for. (page 392)

At the city or county level:

• Purchase orders – Show what products or services were obtained from which vendors, at what price, and whether they were ever actually paid.
• Payroll – tells you how much employees were paid, including deductions, time records, sick leave, vacation, and other absences.
• Expense records – shows who is traveling, how often, where they’re going, and the lifestyle they lead while they’re there.
• Telephone records – could show who is trying to influence government decisions
• Bids & bid specifications – government agency description of what it wants to buy or build and are sent to all contractors that want to bid for the work
• Contracts between vendors – shows who’s getting paid, how much, and for what. Doesn’t necessarily correlate to a bid, but should always be public.
• Licenses – issued for a variety of things depending on the city / county: occupations, business industries, types of pet, etc
• Inspection reports – tell you about the safety of a building, etc. Could be related to fire, building stability, sanitation, etc
• Zoning records – include maps, reports, petitions, and case files pertaining to planning and zoning actions and are (usually) public.
• Campaign contributions and financial statements – In some states officials must also disclose the sources of their income, and their investments
• Resumes – tell you where a public official (claims that they) worked, were educated, etc.

County only:

• Tax-assessment records – reveal the owner, legal description, and assessed value of the land and buildings for each piece of property in a community. Usually are cross-indexed so they can be accessed in multiple places.
• Motor vehicle registrations – who owns what cars, their values, and taxes paid on them. Sometimes this is kept at the state level. Increasingly this information is no longer public record because of recent privacy laws.
• Deeds – indicate who owns a property, who sold it, and when the transaction occurred. The registrar of deeds usually has these.

More than any other section so far, public records work is a space where you can make your own stories, without an inciting incident, by looking at data for things that are interesting or out of place.

School records often available to the public (page 394)

• Laws and policies regarding education – the authors note you should always start here. You can’t catch a discrepancy unless you know what a school is supposed to be doing to begin with.
• Budget and financial records – show district priorities, comparisons to previous years show how they’ve shifted.
• Bills and warrants – Show whether they stuck to that plan. What did they actually do?
• Federal grant documents – reveal what the school promised to spend that money on. You can compare that with vouchers showing how much money was actually spent.
• Salary information – public in most states, but what qualifies as salary varies between them.
• Employment contracts for superintendents – often public, reveal what perks they’re getting. Travel, car allowances, club memberships, etc.
• Accreditation reports, state audits, and similar assessments – how well is the district actually performing? For accreditation, they start with a self-assessment, which is used by a visiting team to create the final report, so keep that in mind.
• Food service records – contain those specific expenditures, menus, etc
• Transportation records – include inspection reports and service records, crashes, etc.

Do not rely on police reports. They lie, and this is common knowledge in the profession at this point. (page 397, description of the murder of George Floyd.)

“The Floyd and Greene cases illustrate a problem with police reporting: the excessive reliance of reporters on the accounts they receive from law enforcement officers and the documents they prepare. The problem has existed for as long as there have been police and news reporters. But hte popularity of cell phones with capability of recording video and audio along with the growing use of body cams by police departments have made the problem apparent.” (page 397)

Several anecdotes catching up folks who have somehow managed to avoid all of the police killings. I think they’re approaching this from the (unfortunately correct) assumption that some students will need convinced.

This irritated me; following a section which admits that government agencies intentionally do not collect useful data, and falsify the little they do, they also say this:

“Partly in response to the news coverage, the U.S. Department of Justice will start collecting data on all “arrest-related” deaths… until more reliable data are available, reporters and news organizations should refrain from drawing any conclusions about trends in police-involved shootings unless they have conduced a systematic and thorough investigation of their own.” (page 398)

I don’t object to this in a literal sense; if you’re going to claim a trend, yes obviously you should have done a thorough investigation of your own. But in a way that is both plausibly deniable and a little sinister, the call to wait out of the abundance of caution, pre-emptively seeding doubt and adding inertia to these investigations rubs me wrong. If, prior to this commitment to collect more data, it was up to journalists to buck the system, defy authority, and conduct those studies on their own, why would that change now that they claim they’re going to collect more? I don’t think any language which lowers that urgency will have any effect other than allowing social movements to cool.

This book recommends getting chummy with cops. There’s no other way to say it. They recommend spending lots of time at police stations, and requesting ride-alongs with police officers. (page 398) They acknowledge that reporters and cops distrust each other but do not name why; because it’s our job to catch them abusing their authority and they are predisposed to doing so at higher rates. Also ridiculous because, at least in the case of SPD, the police office is locked and they won’t talk to you if you start conversation. They’re very hardline about you talking to their PR rep, who is never available.

The most honest thing in this section is the statement “journalists must work to overcome the suspicion and distrust of the police because they need information from officers to write their stories”. (page 398)

Oh my god another unnecessary sexual assault example. Why are you doing this?

Key police documents: (page 399-400)

• Police blotter – record of all calls received. Where and when an event occurred, and sometimes if an arrest was made. This is primarily a set of leads.
• Incident reports – description of events at a greater level of fidelity. Names, properties damaged, specific crimes and officers involved. Depending on the state, more or less information can be withheld. Don’t forget these are written by cops.
• Affidavits for arrest & search warrants – these are usually found in district and circuit court files after the investigation.
• Jail bookings – indicate when people are taken into custody or released
• Autopsy reports – cause and manner of death
• Medical examiner’s report – sometimes separate from autopsy. Includes crime scene information, witnesses, and next of kin you won’t find elsewhere.
• Arrest reports – describe people who have been arrested, the offense, witnesses, and outcome
• Criminal history records – The above, but historically. The authors caution against publishing this as it could bias juries.
• Police misconduct investigation records – show you how they’ve handled allegations and specific officers. Availability varies by state.
• Accident reports – this is in reference to like, car accidents police are called to, not accidental weapon discharges or whatever.

Authors urge you not to over-report on crime. Make sure the community actually wants you to cover anniversaries or whatever; it’s easy news but if you aren’t helping anyone you shouldn’t do it.

Without weighing in on whether the frequency or way we report crime is professional, here’s what the authors suggest a crime story should contain: (page 402)

• Deaths and injuries
• Nature and value of property stolen or damaged
• As complete an identification of the subject as possible
• Identification of victims and witnesses. They say some places don’t publish addresses anymore, and that seems a weirdly invasive thing to include anyway. Again, withhold names of victims of sexual violence
• The exact charges filed against the suspect
• A “narrative of the crime and arrest”. Again, be wary this is provided by the police.

Crime is one of those areas where PRECISE wording is key. Be careful of whether your language implies fault, confirms guilt, or absolves it.

Structure of a criminal case (page 406)

Pretrial – complaint is filed. Defendant is brought to a judge. Misdemeanors are sometimes settled here. For felonies, bail and preliminary hearing dates are set.
The purpose of this stage is to convince the judge that a trial is necessary.
Grand jury proceedings are closed to press and public, but you can lurk and solicit testimony. Witnesses can talk about their testimony but nobody else can. If you get a leak, you can publish it, but you’ll get subpoenaed to burn your source.
If the defendant is charged, they’re arraigned. They enter pleas, and trial dates are set. Usually within two to three months.
Before trial, everyone has to disclose witnesses and exhibits. They can reach a plea agreement at any time. During coverage of these events, it’s important to remind your audience that they have not been found guilty.

Trial – First bit is jury selection. Attorneys have opportunities to get jurors dismissed. Usually this is open to the public.
Testimony is usually public and becomes public record. Courts can make exceptions.
When reporting, witness testimony usually takes precedence over other information.
Jurors deliberate in private, but journalists often try and pry details from them after they’ve delivered a verdict. Sometimes judges order reporters not to approach jurors, and this is probably a first amendment violation. Buckle up if you wanna fight that.

Post-trial – defendant is either acquitted or convicted and sentenced. Only convictions can be appealed.

Civil Trials

A little different in that one party files a complaint against the other, and neither is the state. They can make whatever demands they want; money is arbitrary and the values don’t mean anything. Don’t bother reporting much on that part. You can ask for other kinds of relief.

If it’s not dismissed, defendants submit “answers” to the court; their version of facts and events. Like complaints, these are public record. When you report on either of these, you’ll need to heavily condense and summarize; lawyers are trying to solve a different problem by being broad and comprehensive. That’s not great for news.

Discovery follows, in which they ask each other for evidence. Remains confidential unless filed with the court. Even if filed, they can ask for things to be sealed. Some courts are really enthusiastic about sealing everything, which is a pain in the ass for reporters.

Most civil trials end prematurely when one side settles with the other. Settlements are usually kept secret, but if it goes all the way through trial you can expect it to be in the public record in most cases.

In addition to the appeals process, losing parties can ask the judge to render a “judgment as a matter of law”, basically vetoing a jury verdict in favor of their own. These are pretty rare. (page 410)

Appeals can proceed as in criminal cases.

The rest of this chapter is more of a primer on current events for folks who have been asleep for the last five years. It feels so weird reading a recap of Covid, we really are living through history, huh?

The chapter does not really acknowledge the press’s complicity in Covid misinformation.

An exception noted about best practices in public health coverage, but also science in general; journalists are more willing to let scientists review articles before publication. There’s less of a conflict of interest, and their primary reluctance in working with journalists is that the information will be misused or misunderstood. It also helps balance out that journalists are likely out of their depth. (page 413)

Guest columnist is Andrew Nelson of the Omaha World-Herald, on developing sources on the police beat. He repeats some of the advice earlier in the chapter (asking to tag on ride-alongs) and adds a few more, like visiting early shift briefings (called lineups) to introduce yourself, and asking for a tour of police stations or jails.

[Note: only certain types of people will feel safe asking for a ride-along. A queer person and/or person of color definitely is not going to want to ride shotgun with the grand wizard of the KKK.]

The most useful bit I think, is the acknowledgment that you aren’t the force’s PR agent, and in the event that they won’t work with you, pointing out that you’re going to be seeing a lot of each other anyway so you might as well get to know each other. (page 414)

They also give some sources you’ll want to meet outside of the station, some of whom specifically because they aren’t going to be fans.

• Criminal justice professors at a local uni
• Criminal defense attorneys
• Civil rights orgs
• Retired officers
• Low-level officers and detectives

What surprised me about this chapter is nobody even once mentions the concept of a public information officer (PIO). My understanding from prior reading, and even my own personal experience, tells me that it is far more likely you’ll be referred to them than it is that SPD will sit down to chat with you.

A second guest columnist, Don Stacom of the Hartford Courant (Connecticut) is pretty down on “citizen journalism” as a concept. (page 415)

Pages 415-416 have a cheat sheet for priorities on information when reporting on crime, courts, the environment, and public health. One note that sticks out to me is “avoid being excessively negative in describing public health problems”, and I wish they had an explanation for that. It makes me wonder if they’re thinking about COVID when they say that, and how that might relate to under reporting on Covid statistics.

The exercises for this chapter look particularly useful; they provide sample government documents for you to attempt to parse.

Chapter 18 – Introduction to Investigative Reporting

Authors acknowledge cost is a limiting agent in organizations running investigative stories. (page 434)

Investigative reporters should probably read a lot; not just establishment papers but blogs and other independent publications. They describe that feeling of piqued curiosity while reading random nonsense that, prior to doing this work I probably would have glossed over, but it really is like that sometimes.

So far the book has not really mentioned social media, or its use/misuse. In this chapter, though, they go to the mat for Twitter as an essential tool. By the time this was published, the service would have been in decline for well over a year, so that indicates a missed edit.

This advice is somewhat contrary to that provided by Steele and Barlett elsewhere: “Reporters and their editors do not want to waste time chasing trail of documents that contribute nothing to the investigation”. (page 438) More exhaustive textbooks on the topic describe this as a necessary byproduct of the Documents State of Mind.

It’s important to evaluate the motivations of whistleblowers (page 440). It’s nice to see the authors not taking as an antagonistic tone here as I have seen in other texts.

Investigators shouldn’t assume that the person being investigated won’t talk to them; that’s a good point. It’s best to assemble as much as you can before approaching them, so you can call out bullshit.

Brief mention of public perception of “gotcha” journalism. There’s a good point buried in there about not seeming too confrontational even during a confrontation, and allowing for the possibility of learning something new or your mind to be changed. But on some level, the unnamed “critics of investigative journalism” really boils down to people not liking being caught, and I have very little sympathy for that. (page 441) Also still annoyed by how many times the authors have done the “some critics say…” thing that they ought to be teaching students not to do, especially when they seem to have no problem naming other figures / arguments outright.

It’s important to stay connected with your sources since you might be investigating for weeks or months.

The authors contradict advice I’ve seen in other books about writing the story as you go. Their argument is that for investigative journalism, you want to make sure your end product doesn’t miss anything you’ve discovered recently, and presumably it’s also because your understanding could change.

They broadly describe computer-assisted reporting but don’t give any tangible advice or techniques for doing so, which is disappointing. They name drop a couple of specific pieces of software (Quattro Pro and Excel for spreadsheets, and for relational databases FoxPro, PAradox, dBase, and Access) but that’s as far as they go. (page 444)

This is a nice bite-sized quote:

“Computers do not interview sources, and they are only as good as the information that goes into them.” (page 444)

I’m disappointed by its handling of social media. There’s a LOT of potential for best practices / historical misuses, but here on page 444-445, five paragraphs is all they provide. This is it, for the entire book. They give almost no information about how to use it / not use it, and seem purely positive on it making journalist’s lives easier. This is a really important ethical topic that they’ve completely phoned in. Especially frustrating since if people are buying new textbooks, they probably want up-to-date information on how the field has changed since the 40’s or whatever.

Page 447 describes the ABC expose; because they abbreviate sums of X million by dropping the “million”, it looks like they’re claiming the reporters had to pay 2$ for trespassing. Not following their own lessons in the book on handling numbers and statistics.

Very lazy assessment of undercover investigative reporting. No new information, lots of “some would say” and ultimately concludes “I dunno, ask your boss”. (page 448)

The bulk of this chapter is just repeating what has already been said. Very, very little new information.

Guest columnist Paula Levigne notes that it isn’t always immediately obvious what’s a good investigative story; in some cases she doubts it’s worth the phone call but then ends up paying off. Just stay curious. (page 449)

Chapter 19 – Journalism and Public Relations

This is the last chapter, it opens with this idea:

“Journalists and PR practitioners need each other. Journalists want to know what is happening in different sectors of their community, and PR practitioners work with journalists to get their stories about clients in the news…while PR practitioners need journalists to be interested in their stories, journalists need PR people for information and story ideas.” (page 452)

Emphatically no. The authors do not critically engage with the market forces that currently make this seem necessary, and only engage with the potential conflicts of interests on a basic, surface level. Since this is the last chapter of the book, I can now confidently say that this textbook is meant only to prepare journalists to behave in an establishment organization.

“PR practitioners usually have degrees in journalism or a public relations specialization…” (page 452)

Now THIS, I want to learn more about. This idea ties into those found in both Elements of Journalism, and Manufacturing Consent, regarding the capture of professional talent from one to the other. No citation is provided, no details, no followup reading, they just drop this and move on, but it’s something I really need to investigate. What does that pipeline look like? How much do those classes overlap in the course of a degree?

We have now fully transitioned our intended audience:

“This chapter describes the PR practioner’s job, with a focus on writing news releases for the media and working with journalists…this type of PR is called media relations.” (page 454)

Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the intended audience remains the same, but that the expected separation between the fields is being collapsed, the conflict of interests sidestepped.

“The overall objective of this field is to promote the client and get its name, product, or service into the news without paying for advertising… Strategic communications is creating and developing a plan that effectively communicates a consistent message to particular audiences…” (page 453)

I would have expected this chapter to talk about how to reform this problem or do your job in spite of PR agencies; it’s bizarre that we’re teaching folks how to do this, as if it is positive, in the same textbook with virtually no transition or cognitive dissonance.

At this point I think I need to talk about this book, and the lack of separation between the professions having infected even the way we teach it, very explicitly in the video.

“Risk communication involves preventative planning for any potential problems and having an action plan if they do. For example, chemical companies need risk communication plans in case their products leak and affect a community. Crisis communication is after-the-fact, when PR must smooth things over between the client and the public.” (page 453-454)

What dystopian nightmare dimension have I fallen into? Journalists should not be learning how to do this, they should be learning how to prevent it. This is spiritually, mutually exclusive with the responsibility of a journalist to the public, and it’s not even being taught in a “know thine enemy” sort of way.

Page 456 has a tweet about an anti-vaxxer getting ahold of an internal memo on mandatory vaccination policy at Carhartt and organizing a boycott. The lesson here is about how internal comms can have consequences if read by the public.

“Public relations practitioners use various news media to get information about their client to the public. They determine which media outlets will best serve their purposes. … a news release has a better chance of being picked up by the media if it is newsworthy, well-written, and adheres to the organization’s style guidelines… news releases are written in AP style… Video news releases—VNRs— are produced so they can be inserted directly into a TV newscast.” (Page 457)

They’re describing how to disguise advertising as news. Holy shit.

Jan Thornburg, a PR manager, provides tips on how to manipulate the media, including (pages 456-457:

• Never say “no comment” (presumably for reasons of controlling messaging?)
• Ask what the reporter needs in order to work with their deadline
• “Be flexibile because sometimes the story you set up is dropped for breaking news; pitch the story another day”
• “Be a good team player. Journalists and you need each other”.
• Most hilariously, “use LinkedIn as an excellent resource for professional connections and resources (follow hashtags such as #mediarelations, listen to podcasts).” LinkedIn is a hellsite.

Advice on providing pre-written advance stories to journalists, with “agenda leads” containing date, time, place. This is in direct opposition to the advice given to journalists in the same book, to cut away agenda leads. They’re playing both sides here. (page 457)

This page encourages PR folks to lie in the news:

“A PR person sometimes writes about an event as though it already had happened and the news media is reporting on it. For example, a release about the grand opening of a new hotel might include events surrounding the opening and quotes from the hotel owner and hotel guests — just as the practitioner hopes the occasion will go. This type of release serves two purposes: it lets the reporters know what will occur at the event, in case they want to cover it, and it helps the story get published quickly after the event.” (page 458)

Even with the caveat that a journalist is, at least hopefully, unlikely to publish this verbatim, I am terrified by the capture of the field. I didn’t realize it was this bad; in order to keep up with the demand in a 24-hour news environment, news organizations are relying on corporations they ought to be questioning to write news for them. It reinforces itself; the more news they need to produce, and the shorter the deadline, the less they can write on their own. As trust and quality decline, they have to rely on it more and more.

“In world-wide Cision media relations surveys, journalists consistently rank press releases and news announcements as their preferred type of content from PR practitioners.” (page 459)

I must, MUST find a source for this.

Same page provides advice on fitting press releases into both the 5W’s + H structure, and aligning with traditional definitions of “newsworthiness”. This has me wondering about who those definitions are actually serving, especially given professional debate on who they leave out.

I can’t believe this never occurred to me but just Googling around for some sources on modern debates of newsworthiness reveals that a huge amount of resources and discourse are around the use of the term in marketing. These aren’t even journalists having a professional disagreement, it’s just… PR folks manipulating news.

Page 468 begins a transition back to news values, talking about the problems with using PR releases but mostly from the perspective of PR people not writing them well enough. Editors don’t use them as written because “the same releases are sent to many news organizations and they want their story to be different”.

There is only a cursory attempt to engage with the conflict of interests, even in this “from a journalist’s perspective” section. I am frankly floored. This advice is for making PR releases harder to distinguish from traditional news formats, not for piercing the veil or resisting manipulation. It’s framed as ways they deviate from professional format, without mention of the inherent toxicity of the practice.

Nat put this more succinctly than I can; this is copy-editing for PR.

---

And…that’s it, for the whole book. No conclusion, it’s exercise materials and appendixes from here. To quote Nat again, this is the journalist’s equivalent of the politician to lobbyist pipeline.

In summation, the back half of this book is dreadful. Either they were in a hurry, or had nothing to say but felt obliged to pad it out anyway. It also becomes increasingly obvious that the authors are passing it around, stylistically.

I’m still glad I read the book, even the last chapter which horrified me, but I was hoping to learn more than I did. So this is what you learn in a modern J-school, huh?