Tag: journalism

Of ‘hybrid careers’ and thngs getting clear(er?)

Interesting article from the NY Times in today’s Bulletin about a Times reporter and new mom who decided to start a “side business” on Etsy.com.

It’s something my brain has been wrestling with for many a moon — the idea of doing some consulting, workshops and book-writing on the side about what I’ve learned in 40 or so years in the news media biz — about everything from how to write a good news release to how and why the media do what we do (and don’t do what we don’t do) and why – at the local level.

Of course, the trick is time management – isn’t that always the trick? And how to find time to properly do a side biz.

I bet I’m far, far from alone. I’m not about to give up my wonderful day (and night and weekend) job. But it is all-consuming — Deb and I refer to it as “the Vortex,” as the daily tide of news can suck me in and spit me out who knows when. It prompts a typical response like one e-mail reply late last night to me: “Do you ever sleep??” Of course I do, but I usually answer e-mails right away – not just to be nice, but because if I don’t I’ll forget! Such is life when one has no memory, only Google and archives — and they only go so far. (Have I said that here before? Probably. See what I mean?;-)

So while the idea of a little side business that can help people, and help us have a place for folks to turn for such advice … is very appealing, the balancing act is a challenge. Besides, who just works 40 hours a week any more? And who feels so comfortable in their job that they realize they can put all their eggs in one proverbial basket?

Then there’s which comes first – the blog, the Website, the consulting business, the workshops? All interrelated, but figuring out the methodical step-by-step process is both freeing and frustrating. I have started a second book via the great free site http://www.fastpencil.com — working title: “How the Media Works: A Reporter’s Guide to How and Why We Do What We Do, and How We Can Help Each Other..” (Who needs a cover photo with that long a subtitle?;-)

It’d probably be an e-book – they are cheaper, more convenient, easier to update (the Website and blog would make it a living book – I don’t want to buy books, I want to subscribe to them! Besides, I wouldn’t be in it just for the money, but to provide a service I want to see happen – and I see a real niche and need for.

So anyway, back to my point – and like Ellen, I did have one;-) Of course, like many, I have dreams — being a talking head on the networks (see other book-in-progress, ‘Rejecting the Blame Society’) – but know that it’s best to keep my nose to the proverbial grindstone, very glad to not just write news articles and help colleagues do the same, but answer people on Facebook etc. when they wonder why 5 cop cars just sped down their street on the way to something. I find out, tell them – and we each benefit from the exchange of information. Perfect!

That’s an immediate, helpful interaction I relish – even cherish. And I’m not about to give that up, no matter where my “hybrid career” dreams take me. One should feed off the other, and make it better.

How about you? I bet you have dreams, too – may they come to pass! And I hope my path gets clearer as I keep talking, and typing about it.

Riding the news tide: Crimes covered, or not

We get all sorts of news tips and comments, as you can imagine. Some, well truly deserve no reply, not even a thanks. Rudeness can know no bounds, as you might expect. But I’m thrilled in little ways when I can provide an answer, a direction to an answer, offer up what someone needs, shed a little light.

“I just completed grand jury duty and I am wondering why you report on certain cases and don’t report on others,” a lady recently asked.

Oh man, that could fill a book or 3. Maybe one day it will. But in the meantime, we had a nice, non-confrontational exchange – and toward the end, I wrote that maybe I should blog about it, and she said, yes, I should – ‘it is so interesting.”

Well, I think so too. Some times I really do think the anger or frustration people feel about institutions such as, say, government or the media come from a lack of knowledge or understanding. Not always, of course, and I sure don’t want to talk down to or call folks’ ignorant. But some just crave some insight – a peek behind the curtain, you might say.

So here’s some expanded thoughts on what I had to say to that really good, thankfully nicely put, curious, non-accusatory question;-)

There are a host of factors that go into what stories get covered or don’t — sometimes ‘equal’ crimes or crashes or fires or the daily grist of breaking news make it into a broadcast or onto the Website or not simply because we do or don’t know about them. Again, for a variety of reasons – it may seem someone asks us every time they hear a siren or see a police car speeding somewhere, but some times those trees just fall in a part of the News Forest where they don’t make a sound, and people assume/presume we know when we don’t. (Then there are those who think we know everything and are upset when we don’t. Sorry, folks – we’re human too.)

The first in a string of judgment calls involves whether police put out a news release. And they may or may not put one out on, say, a minor or non-injury crash, depending on the circumstances of that crash, fire or what have you — or because they are so busy moving on to the next first-responder incident they never get around to it.

But I also noted that some crimes — abuse comes to mind – are not always reported due to policies ranging from federal privacy rules to not wanting to cause added woes when it involves a family member, for example. When police are turning to the public for any other potential victims – or the case is particularly high-profile (a gymnastics coach, a teacher etc.) or severe/disturbing –again, all judgment calls that might be different from one day to the next, depending in part on how many other things are going on that day.

Oh, I should throw in here one response from my kind correspondent, who said that after serving on the grand jury, she “learned so much about the law and, sadly, about our community, living in Bend, seeing the news was the only crime I knew about, but it appears there is quite a bit more going on here than I ever could have imagined.”

A rude awakening, indeed, and bound to change your perspective on your community. Hopefully not to raise the fear level, but a real eye-opener.

I told her I was sure it was “a window into a sad, very troubling part of our community.”

And she said – in what I took as an honest misunderstanding — “I guess I just thought that if an arrest was made you were allowed to report on it. Interesting that you need permission to do that from the police department or the DA. … I am just trying to figure out how all this works.”

My journalistic senses bristled and I answered – fast — ‘No, no, I never said ALLOWED. It’s more like … well, look at the court dockets of dozens of cases a single day. We don’t ONLY report the ones police do news releases on, but those are the bigger ones – robberies, break-ins, murders etc.”

And my reply also included a long-standing line I use that can sound like a cop-out but is just the basic truth: “For every story (crime or otherwise) we get to, there are hundreds, if not thousands we don’t. There are investigative reasons police or prosecutors might not release some information before trial. And lots of other factors come into play.”

I … we should never ever assume people know all that. As for whether you/they believe it – that we don’t choose which stories to do based on who we know and are trying to hurt or curry favor with, as opposed to what’s the most interesting to any given reporter on any given day — well, we can only control what we report, not how it’s received. I often say I take 100 percent credit (or blame) for what’s on the lines I write. What people read between them often has far more to do with what views and other “baggage” they bring to a story than what we write or say.

The grand juror got what I was saying, adding that she’d always watched our news “and I feel better knowing that you all are ethical in your reporting. I hope that will continue.”

“And I also want to say that I was very impressed with the officers and the DA’s office. They are very professional and human and do a wonderful job in our community.”

And thus the exchange ended. And I was reminded that some times, folks just need a bit of explanation about how things work to overcome misconceptions, assumptions or just working in a knowledge vacuum that can lead to all sorts of negative things.

Not always, of course. Many people are dead-set in their bunker mentalities of the us vs. them, and believe everyone has an angle to make someone look good or bad, that we focus on the bad side of news to make a buck rather than it just being … the news (1,000 kids crossing a street safely isn’t news. One who doesn’t, is;-/ Or that we don’t do any(!) good news stories (oh man, stats to show otherwise apparently will never change some minds on that one, because the tragedies/problems are so … sticky and heavy, while the good news often feels like a lighter-than-air will o’ the wisp… fluttering off in the breeze.)

I hope this all came across as more of an explanation than a defense. And wasn’t an eye-rolling exercise in “oh, who doesn’t know all THAT.” Because I really believe there are many who don’t know, and won’t automatically distrust the answers because they come from the Big Bad Media in Cahoots with Big Bad Government.

I sure hope/pray so.

And your question about what we do/don’t do and why is? (And the tone of your question will no doubt play a role in whether I answer and how. Civility meets civility and all that;-)

Riding the news tide: Telling both/all sides

I think I’ll use ‘Riding the news tide’ as the name for blog posts where I try to explain a bit how us reporter-types work, in TV, online or anywhere else. It ties back to my way of telling that my job is “riding the tide of the daily news.”

Case in point: Tonight, a provocative story on a bobcat trapped close to a popular hiking tail. We were made aware, and tonight had that hiker’s side, and the side of those who wish to ban traps, along with info – but no on-camera interview – about the state rules that allow such trapping, but not within 50 feet of certain publicly used trails.

OK, our usual package – the reporter-tracked stories – is 1 minute, 30 seconds. That may sound like a lot, but try picking up any written material and reading it aloud for a minute-30 – see how far you get into the newspaper, magazine article or book.

When folks cheer that we tell both sides of a story, I say something like, “Well we were lucky — this time there were only two sides.”

On the trapping issue, just for example, along with the hiker worried about his dog getting snared in a trap and the folks trying to restrict trapping, there are: the sheriff’s office or OSP investigating the possibly illegal trapping method, the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife for perspective on trapping regulations and the role of trapping in wildlife management, and of course — the trappers themselves.

There are probably more sides I haven’t thought of, beyond the general public and their views, based on whatever facts or misconceptions you might see or imagine.

Now, get that all in a minute-30. That’d be like half a sound-bite per side. Without any reporter-provided facts, stats etc.

That’s our challenge. We only get to scratch the surface. We cannot really do Dateline NBC hour-long specials, or 20-minute segments. It’s just not what we’re able to do.

So hopefully, in this case, in the next few days, we’ll tell more perspectives. And those who see one piece or the other will be sure as heck that we’re slanted this way or that.

Or, as with many issues, we will try to tell several perspectives as we follow the path of a public debate over a period of weeks, months, even years. That’s a big-picture kind of balance that one might not see (or believe) looking at any one individual segment or piece of the puzzle.

Add in that many people watch or listen to the news out of the “corner of their ear” while doing other things that involve … living one’s life, and the “did you hear?” partially accurate versions of what we say that can get misunderstood in second- or third-generation retelling, and … well, the opportunities for unintentionally upsetting someone or other expand exponentially.

I’m blessed – or cursed – with an ‘infinite amount of rope to hang myself” (heh) on the Web, where space is, basically, without limitation. But time, and a reader’s willingness to keep going, are limitations that come into play on even the most fascinating (to me) online story.

All this is not meant as an excuse, or a defense of not trying to be objective in every outing. But it’s a bit of the reality we face – just an explanation of things that might not be obvious at first glance.

I have another one to write in a moment. But that’s why I often say – not, again, to get away with anything, but just stating the facts: that “there’s always more to the story.” Always!

The nice thing about that is, that means there’s always more to talk about the next time, whenever that may be.

Riding the tide of the daily news (and helping others float their boat)

I often tell people I ride the tide of the daily news.

And that means I often have less than full control over where the day takes me — because you can never know exactly what’s going to come into the e-mail box, pop up on the police scanner or just… happen. (Like an ER doctor, but thankfully with a lot less blood and … stuff;-)

Some days that look to be busy as heck fizzle. Some quiet days blow up fast.

Ever since second grade and the mimeoed (remember mimeograph machines? How about ditto machines?) Room 210 Tooter, I’ve loved telling folks what’s going on.

Part and parcel of how we hear about stuff is the lowly (hey, they get little respect but are vital) news release (which of course is usually e-mailed but — we still get the occasional fax. Fax machines – long gone, so they are turned into Adobe PDFs auto-magically;-)

Ask just about any Central Oregon police officer or fire official, and odds are after we get such a release, I’ll be one of, if not the first calling or e-mailing to fill in holes, ask a follow-up question or find out something more specific than say, “vehicle.” (Bleh.)

My list of Press Release Pet Peeves has been so longstanding, there’s probably a version buried in the (ahem) bowels of this very blog.

Things like — don’t say what year something is going to happen, even near the end or beginning of the year — that’s so obvious in the vast majority of cases. But please DO put in what day of the WEEK it will be – that helps folks know whether they can attend your event or not. Don’t make them look it up on a calendar.

Titles are only capitalized immediately BEFORE a name, not after. Stuff like that. (Give up the two spaces between sentences — or heaven forbid, double-spacing the lines — those kinds of things died with the typewriter and grizzled newspaper copy editors with red pencils. And know your its and it’ses. And try not to let your organization develop it’s own quirky style, like capping the “City” of Bend (it’s not the only city!) or having to cap “County” every time in a release. Why? And ease back on the Acronyming of America (A of A). (Oh, and “Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley?” There are 2 senators from Oregon. Or is that a dig at your fellow Democrat?;-)

Oh, and PR folks: I know you want to make personal relationships happen, but if you send something only to one person in a 20-person newsroom, it WILL be the day they are off – or worse yet are the ancient un-updated media lists that send to people and places long gone — in some cases, dearly departed, even. That’s really worth the time and investment. Better to use the generic e-mail address, like stories@ktvz.com for our newsroom. Several people check that and will route it properly.

I’ve thought many times about a sideline business of helping folks get the basic style and grammar hurdles out of their releases, so folks can focus on the content.

But when you ride the tide of the daily news, it’s pretty much all-consuming, just to stay in the boat, not have it flip and keep it pointed downstream, ready for whatever rapids, swirls and eddies lie ahead.

And don’t forget that life jacket!

Of journalism, objectivity and emotion

A rally on climate change was held in Bend Sunday.

For a moment, I’d like you to step back from your personal views on the topic and consider this perspective: You are the reporter, or the editor who assigned such a story.

In some cases, such a rally brings out counter-demonstrators with a different perspective.

In this case, however, there was none. Turnout was … well, we said “dozens,” so let’s say about 50 folks.

So … as reporter/editor, do you go seeking out people with other perspectives to “balance” the story? And if you do, do you include a line or two from them, or scrupulously make the story 50-5o? (On a holiday-weekend Sunday when you are unlikely to be able to reach many of the experts on the other side? Not that anyone at the rally claimed to be an expert.)

Or do you just tell of the rally, how many were there, and some of their views?

(Or say the rally was for or against … new immigration policies. For or against new gun regulations, or abortion, or any other incendiary, one side-never-will-convince-the-other-side issue.)

Or do you not cover the rally at all, because it’s inherently one-sided?

I personally think you report what happened, and it’s as high or low in your lineup of stories as the rest of the day’s news suggests. Then, when people on the other side hold their rally or gathering, you strive to give it similar treatment. Not “equal.” That’s too precise a measurement for messy humans.

We’re not robots. We don’t count words or syllables. If one side in one of these seemingly never-ending disputes is better organized, it’s not our job to help the other side organize – but it could be our job to note, factually, that lack of organization. Right? The loudest voice shouldn’t always win, but neither should the quietest, just because we consider them “right.”

Someone who’s a regular on our Website’s comments threw out the line, “Whatever happened to real journalism”?

I argued that there’s just as much of it out there as there ever was — even more so, perhaps, in the world of the Internet.

What has changed, far more, is for many, is the partisan nature of the prism through which they view journalism.

If a story doesn’t include their perspective, or their favorite caustic stat or antidote to hurl at the other side, it’s not “objective.”

Talk-show hosts get more hours per week than anyone else to rail against the “mainstream,” “lamestream” media — as if they aren’t part of it. Oh no, they are the “balance” against it.

We get complaints, like all media these days, of being on the president’s side. Others, meanwhile, claim some large corporations dictate what we cover and how, and what to ignore.

It seems there’s barely any room for civil debate and discussion any more — in a world of walking on eggshells and avoiding landmines.

Perhaps Congress and the president are so sharply split only as a reflection of a sharply divided nation, with everyone frustrated but the partisans dug deep into their foxholes, ready to fire at anything that moves. (With words, not bullets, of course.)

But I should hasten to add that our goal is to not let the relatively small number of fierce partisans on both/all sides of these tough, complex issues mislead us into thinking that the majority of our viewers and readers agree with them and disdain our work. Because thankfully, there are glorious occasional glimpses of just what the (Nixon phrase warning) silent majority think, and it’s frustration, for sure – but as much with the discussion-hijackers and the flamethrowers as the policymakers and the govt. bureaucrats who are just trying to do their jobs and help folks.

I’ve been at this gig for a long time, and I know how the blossoming of social media has given folks who used to write occasional pithy letters to the editor or complain loudly over the phone a new megaphone in which to try to take over the discussion and verbally beat the other side into submission … as everyone else walks away, frustrated and disgusted.

I just hope and pray that the signal of democracy — messy but vital — isn’t drowned out permanently by the noise of the haters. (I may do a bumper sticker one day: ‘To BLAME is to B-LAME.” That’s my Blame Society slogan of the day;-) Because if all we care about is “winning” and proving the ones on the other side of this or that incendiary issue are not just wrong or misled, but evil incarnate… we’ll all lose. Big-time.

Some would say that ship has sailed, that we’re already lost. I hope and pray they’re wrong.

Sorry about that, KOHD. And I mean it.

“You’re the best person I’ve ever had to lay off.”

Ouch.

In the fall of 1990, I got to hear those nice, in a way, but lousy in most others and not very unexpected words, over the phone, from a United Press International colleague in Los Angeles, directed to me, the last UPI (wire service) reporter in Portland, and next to last in the state.

I had stuck with them through thick, thin and one bankruptcy (there were more later), always enjoying the thrill of competing with the mighty (far bigger, and as a non-profit ‘cooperative,’ far more profitable) Associated Press – and winning our share of those important journalistic battles.

And so, I – like so many these troubled times – have a commiserating feeling what the folks at KOHD are going through, having given it their best shot, ever since their oh-so-badly timed debut in the fall of 2007 – just as the bubble began to burst – to today’s announcement that they won’t be doing full newscasts any more – at least for now.

But after five years at KTVZ, I knew what the reaction would be from my colleagues – not of glee or joy for a vanquished foe. No way. Instead, a sadness that one might feel in the Olympics, for example, when a worthy competitor isn’t able to finish the race. This isn’t “winning,” it’s … not losing, and they are definitely not the same.

Anyone who spends any time around me knows that when it comes to the news, I’m a very competitive guy. And KOHD has given us great competition, and that’s something not to dismiss lightly.

Good competition makes you stronger, keeps you on your toes, your ear to the scanner, fingers to the keyboard, wanting to out-tweet, out-write, do better than the other folks. Work the sources, double-check the scripts, get it first but get it right. (A favorite saying from my UPI days.) Savoring the wins, fretting over the losses, but also pleased when we can say, ‘Yeah, they had THAT, but we had THIS!”  Trying to make sure we gave as good as we got.

I ran into Matt McDonald at Freddie’s a week or two ago, and told him what I’ll tell you: They did a great job, and deserved better ratings than they got. Sure, I grrrrrit my teeth over those who today don’t just mourn their loss, but use it as another excuse to trash us as ‘not local enough,’ or worse yet, inaccurate – ‘dems fighting words,’ to me! I know that’s not true, but if the online world and all those amazing anonymous comments from our ‘guests’ have taught me anything, it’s that one has to have a far thicker skin to deal with those who seemingly live to vent and trash.

But seriously, we had to hustle like hell not to have our heads handed to us on a platter by the guys and gals up the street. Their writing, video, and of course brand-new technology were top-notch.

If this area (and the nation, for that matter) had kept growing with a boom, as we did for years before, their other biggest problem – folks’  habits, and resistance to change – would have been less of a problem, as the region’s turnover kept the influx going. But word of actual school enrollment decreases – unheard of for many a year – shows that the growth, if not stopped, has definitely plateaued. Making it even harder to gather new viewers.

So as we watch them hang on with cut-ins and mini-newscasts, I’m not naive enough to think that means we have the road ahead to ourselves. The economy WILL get better, and this area will have more than one TV station with full newscasts – if not tomorrow, then soon. I hope.

In the meantime, I just wanted to publicly thank all of the KOHD gang, past, present and future, for giving us the tough race to tell each day’s news the best that the viewers deserved, and for giving Central Oregonians a choice that was worthy of their time and interest. As someone who no doubt has watched them perhaps more than they watch themselves – to make sure we weren’t getting scooped – I wish all of them the very best in their future endeavors, and salute them as worthy competitors, and comrades in the very tough, challenging business of small-market TV news.

Being an assignment editor is… challenging

And thanks to a Facebook friend, I’ve found a lady in Denver, Colorado, Misty J., who writes a wonderful, fascinating blog about what the joys and tears and challenges of what this job is like – as well about Twitter, which KTVZ now has a feed on (we also have a new Facebook page! Come check us out;-)
http://assignmenteditorminds.blogspot.com/ is it, and if you’re all curious about what we face on the phones, in the newsroom etc., I highly recommend it.
I plan to be a regular commenter there. It might even inspire more blogging by yours truly.

Facebook, the P-I and change

Tuesday, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer joins the Rocky Mountain News in the great Newspapers of the Past dustbin, except… online.

I used to deliver the Seattle Times (PM paper, only thing that worked with school) and the Kent News-Journal, in Kent, Wash. (Boy did people try to avoid paying their bills. Some things never change.)

Anyway, I’m not wistful about technology moving on, only about the idea that people will pay for quality journalism.

Did we shoot ourselves in the foot when we decided to make information free online? Did we have a choice?

Can we find the answers in time to keep journalism a thriving career, online? Hard to say, but the questions aren’t getting any easier.

When I found our competitor had started a Facebook page I decided to create one and wrestle with the technology, just as FB really messed it up with a new interface that… well, you can find enough complaints out there if you care.

How can we not go where there’s 200-million folks chatting the day away? People expect us to be there, and they’re right. We’ll use it in ways I probably can’t even fathom now, but not as shovelware for what we’re trying to draw people to at KTVZ.COM.

Could be interesting.

Meanwhile… RIP, P-I.

‘Building a Culture of Dialogue’

I spent four very interesting hours Saturday with all three Central Oregon district attorneys, defense lawyers, public defenders, police, several of us media types – all talking off the record.

But it’s VERY ironic that I write up some of the themes of that talk after probably the most overt, posted lawsuit threat in our many months of online article comment postings.

‘Building a Culture of Dialogue’ was the topic of the gathering, arranged by the Oregon Bar Press Broadcasters Council.

Folks gave up a big part of their Saturday for a free bag lunch and a chance to not just talk, but listen to each other as we discussed a few ‘ripped from the headlines’ scenarios that have dealt with the issue of a free press and how that role can cause issues for those seeking to assure a fair trial.

The justice system has changed little over the decades, as technological and cultural shifts have changed, greatly, what a prospective juror might hear or read, and from who or where. Imagine if bloggers, for example, or anonymous article postings existed back when our justice system was created. It’s not a perfect system, but how can it evolve and cope with those issues?

That wasn’t the topic of Saturday’s session, really. But things like that did come up – imagine, for example, a DA sending an e-mail declining to confirm or deny a juicy rumor, but inadvertently – one must presume inadvertently – including some damning information below the e-mail, or in an attachment.

Can the reporter then report that information? Use it to ask questions/gather more info? Confront the DA, threaten to use it unless he/she provides some on-the-record info on an ongoing investigation?

Reporters have gone to jail for refusing to disclose their sources. Local media don’t print info from anonymous sources, unless they can get an on-the-record corrobration.

I’ve learned to live with and have a strong defense against the whole notion that the media only reports things “because it sells papers” (or TV commercials). I know we report what is considered news, and yes, we have to make a profit to survive.

But I am just as uneasy as many a defense lawyer about how days, weeks, months, sometimes even years of reports about a heinous crime can make their job incredibly difficult, even with all the “alleged” and “innocent until proven guilty” provisos that we include, for our own legal protection as much as anything else.

Finding actual justice after the “court of public opinion” has made up its collective mind is only getting harder in an age when Website can give you a person’s criminal history in an instant, and where increasingly, opinions are shared as thinly-veiled, so-called “facts.”

Small town or large, reporters and editors are often friends, of a sort, with their sources, with people who make news, and with people in the justice system. Wearing the right hat at the right time, and knowing how to do one’s job and not rupture those relationships is one of the struggles reporters and editors face all the time. I’ve said before, “I don’t mind making an official mad for the right reason” is a glib quip that tries to put a light face on it.

But of course, when a source tells us something juicy, we have to “consider the source,” literally – how do they stand to gain, if the tip is true and the info comes to light?

We will never convince some – make that many – people that we strive to get the facts right and that we really wouldn’t run over our own grandmother for a juicy story. One thing I try to do in our article-comment system is explain – sure, defend, too, but mainly explain – how we human-being reporters and photographers and our bosses do what we do, and why.

Because if news is a conversation, we all have to listen as much as we talk. It’s that easy – and that hard.

Reality can be ugly

A lady named ‘Michelle’ just posted to an article on KTVZ.COM: “It is really disgusting that the family of the person in this vehicle is forced to look at this. I wish the media had an ounce of courtesy, you can give the news with out these type of pictures!!”

Ah, Michelle, life – and death – can be really ‘digusting’ at times. But maybe, just MAYBE, a large photo of a violent crash will make someone stop and think before they put pedal to the metal and try to pass someone on a busy two-lane highway.

We’ll never know. But we can hope.