Tag: media

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: 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.

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.

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.