Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism

Could it be?

No, the title is not a tryptophan induced mirage (Happy T Day on that note)–there may be some hope out there.

As I was checking my Gmail after a lovely Thanksgiving feast, I noticed an interesting web clip above my inbox. If you have Gmail, you know that those web clips are generated from words and phrases that show up in your emails (possibly chats too? That’s a little scary come to think of it…), so it saddens me to admit my Gmail unearthed an article titled “Can Crowdfunding Help Save the Journalism Business.” Pessimistic emails about my shaky looking future must be filling up my archive bin.

(more…)

In the tradition of transparency, let me first say that I love washing dishes.  I know, I know.  This admission will not earn me friends or coolness points, but it’s true.

When I step up to a counter full of grungy dishes, I know exactly what to do.  First, check for guilty substances (crusty oatmeal, dried egg yolk, greasy drippings, burned rice residue, etc.)  Second, address major offenders with hot water and let them soak.  Third, tackle the glasses before the drying towel gets soaked.  Wash them and dry them immediately to avoid water stains.  Fourth, return to soaked items, first using an abrasive surface, then a very soapy sponge.  Rinse and repeat if necessary.  Fifth, clean pans which get the water in the sink filthiest.  Sixth, wash silverware that has conveniently been soaking at the bottom of the sink.  Lastly, dry dishes and admire them as you fill your perfectly organized cabinets.  Job done!

Journalism is NOT like doing dishes.  There is no right way to tackle a story, no tried-and-true method for being objective, and certainly no clear point when you know your work is done.  Sometimes what you thought was newsworthiest doesn’t strike the same chord with an editor.  Other times, you do a fanastic job reporting, only to get lost in your notes and forget what the news was.  And no matter how many times you reread your final draft, someone always finds a way you could make it better.

I’ve decided, in an attempt at optimism, that journalism is like making sangría.  Yes, there are guidelines (you always start with wine and fruit), but no set recipe.  Just like writing a story, you must consider your audience.  Do my guests have a sweet tooth?  If so, go heavier on the sugar or add lemon soda.  If not, choose drier wine or add something not sweet like seltzer.  Are they prim and proper?  Chances are they won’t use their fingers to dig the sunken pieces of fruit out of their glasses, so stick with lemon and orange slices for garnish and add fruit juices instead of fruit bits.  Do they enjoy a good buzz?  Instead of fruit juice, use fruit liquor like Cointreau.

In the end, making sangría is more about who’s drinking it than what some cookbook says.  Likewise, I will try to remind myself that journalism is all about the audience.  Do they already know about the project I just heard about?  Then give them the latest developments.  Are they quickly reading my story on the subway?  Get to the nutgraph faster.

As for my love of checking tasks off my to do list, I’ll return to my metaphor.  Sure, I’ve made tons of rockin’ sangría already, but the best pitcher ever is still out there, just waiting for me to make it.

Like musicians and strains of melody, reporters generally have an “ear” for newsworthy events and reporting opportunities.  Whether it’s being at the scene of a car accident and interviewing witnesses (after pulling people out of the wreckage, of course, per Ethics discussion) or chasing a tornado, or pursuing a hesitant, but important, source for a story, journalists tend toward a knack of blending curiosity and intuition. We’re reporters and we’re hungry for stories!

But sometimes reporting needs to take a backburner to our humanity, as well as to practicality.

This week, an elderly woman had a heart attack on the city bus I was taking home. Two teenaged girls sitting across from her immediately told the driver to stop and proceeded to call 911.  Since the woman kept saying she lives just a few blocks away, I went over and, loathing standing by helplessly and wanting to do something for her but having 911 already taken, asked her if anyone was home to call.  She said yes and I called her husband, Alex.  Within 10 minutes, one set of EMTs, two fire trucks, the ambulance and Alex arrived.  I watched them take her off the bus in a wheelchair, then got off the bus, made sure the EMTs didn’t need me to fill out a statement, and went home.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

But what kept bothering me for hours after was that my internal monologue/reaction to the woman having a heart attack was – at least in my mind – seflish: I wanted not just to help her, but to be a part of the action.  The human side of me wanted to do all I could to help and the inquisitive side didn’t want to be left behind, not knowing and engaging in the details.  So while this was not newsworthy material, but there was still a part of me that wanted to question passengers and EMTs to get into their heads, too.  And now I felt somewhat ashamed.

But why be ashamed?

So my questions are: is this story an example of simply normal inquisitiveness and desire to help or could a journalist be so entrenched in a desire for answers and context that they get drawn to stories that aren’t stories?

Back from a day of walking around my beat asking people for their take on what the neighborhood’s all about, I am wondering what kind of luck others of you have been having with getting people to provide their names and contact information. Considering that I’m a guy who waves off fliers, ignores the “do you have a minute for the environment” people, swears at telemarketers and is somewhat paranoid about identity theft, I feel somehow sleazy asking random strangers for their e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Not surprisingly, many of them don’t comply with these requests.

I’ve found that women tend to be more wary of identifying themselves. Me being a guy probably makes that exchange more awkward than it might be for a female journalist. Earlier tonight a woman spoke to me for about 5 minutes but then wouldn’t even give me her first name. In other cases, people have given me just a first name, or initials, or their name but nothing more.

That said, I’ve actually been surprised by how many people do readily tell me all kinds of details about their personal lives, including phone numbers and e-mails, seemingly without a second thought. I’ve also wondered in a couple of cases whether someone is giving me a fake number. Haven’t tried to call any of those to check, though.

Not one person has asked for my press pass or an ID. I guess impersonating a journalist is too ridiculous to imagine.

Disclaimer:

This idea may be good, bad, corny, boring, a combination of all of those or none of them at all.

Pitch:

Journalism is a fluid profession. There’s no punching in and punching out, no designated lunch breaks (or sometimes lunch at all), no nine to five work day and no scheduled holidays. When news happens, you’re on. When it’s not happening, you’re looking for ways to draw it out. That kind of irregularity can lead to some pretty funny or interesting situations.

I propose that as these situations happen, we blog about it under the title: Adventures in Journalism (and maybe one of the administrator’s will be nice enough to create a category of the same name since we’re not allowed to do so ourselves). If you’re at this school, chances are you like telling stories anyway. This is the kind of stuff that makes for excellent blog reading. (more…)

Barack Obama and John McCain will face off in their first debate this Friday, September 26. Hosted by Jim Lehrer of PBS’s NewsHour, it will focus on foreign policy. The debate schedule also includes a town hall-style discussion hosted by NBC’s Tom Brokaw on October 7 and a domestic policy debate moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS on October 15. Vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden will debate on October 2, with NewsHour senior correspondent Gwen Ifill hosting.

Given some of the inane questions asked in the primary debates — e.g., George Stephanopolous asking Senator Obama “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” — I thought it might be a useful exercise for aspiring journalists to propose some questions we’d ask if we were hosting one of the debates.

I’ll throw down my three questions for McCain and Obama and invite all my classmates to suggest their own for any of the four candidates.

First, for Senator Obama. Last year, you pledged to filibuster any bill that gave immunity from lawsuits to the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s secret NSA wiretapping program. Yet when such a bill came to the Senate floor, you voted for it. At the Democratic convention in Denver, AT&T sponsored several events, including a party for the Blue Dog Democrats who joined Republicans in driving support for that legislation. Members of both parties have received thousands of dollars in contributions from telecom companies. How do you reconcile your reversal on telecom immunity with your rhetoric on reducing the influence of special interests?

Next, for Senator McCain. When Russia invaded Georgia, a country your foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann represented as a lobbyist, you strongly condemned the action and went as far as saying, “Today we are all Georgians.” You have advocated for NATO membership for Georgia, a position that your running mate Sarah Palin acknowledged might require military retaliation against Russia should a similar situation arise in the future. Given that Russia is a nuclear power, and given that our military leaders say their resources are stretched to the brink in Iraq and Afghanistan, can you explain to the American people why you think it’s advisable to take such a belligerent stance against Russia at this time?

For both candidates: Cabinet appointments will serve as an important indicator of your judgment and priorities, should you become president. As we’ve seen with the current administration, appointments such as Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales can have a significant impact on the development and implementation of both domestic and foreign policy. Can you name two or three people you’d like to name to your Cabinet, and why you think they would be the best candidates for their respective positions?

(image from esquire.com)

Question: What just turned 75, has the masses in debate over its worth, and could quite possibly carry the hopes of an entire industry, for better or worse, on its back? (hint: McCain is only 72, try again)

Answer: Esquire

If you have been following any journalism, business, or tech news over the past few months (or if you are an Esquire addict like myself) you heard rumor of the evolutionary cover that Esquire has been working on for nearly a year in anticipation of its 75th anniversary.

Well, it’s here (unless you are a subscriber to the magazine, in which case the issue delivered to your mailbox is normal. Then, it’s not “here,” it’s on a magazine rack a few blocks away for $5.99).

Utilizing a technology know as E Ink (that of the Kindle for you Amazon fans), Esquire added motion to a once static medium. The cover, hyped for some time, has been generating a good amount of buzz over the last few days (brownie points expected for this link to Jarvis’s blog).

And the majority of the buzz has been negative (see also: here).

But why? It’s as if Esquire’s attempt to do something progressive wasn’t progressive enough. I understand that this was not exactly an earth-shaking innovation — it’s flashing lights after all. But certainly I can’t be the only one who sees the enormous amount of possibility that this technology possesses. Even more so now that it has been presented to the public.

Additionally, in a Facebook/Google moment, Esquire has asked for the help of its inventive readers in finding ways to progress the cover even more.

With the entirety of print media at a cross-roads, any honest attempt in blazing a new path for the genre should be applauded. That is not to say that these attempts should be free of criticism — guidance is essential in any growth. But detractors should not be blinded by the (flashing) glare of pessimism.

After all, Esquire may not have saved journalism’s world today, but neither have any of us.

Okay, so you are in the second week of the semester here at the J-School. Still adjusting to the schedule, keeping up with homework and researching for your field day.

The event given to you was bus drivers protesting budget cuts against the Department of Education for the recent layoffs from their employers. Class is dismissed and you open your MacBookPro to commence the research. Keep in mind that you have only the name of the event and the contact person.

You call the contact person and request for a media packet if possible through e-mail and ask for additional information pertaining to the event. The response is that a press packet will be issued at the event and all other questions will be answered tomorrow.

With no information to begin with at hand, lexis-nexis looks really good right about now. However, to no avail after countless hours of research from Google to the school’s research center, your progress remained stagnant. What are you going to do now? Probably crying should be in you top 3 reasons for panicking.

(more…)