Journalism

Education is important.  That idea was pounded into my head as a child.  My parents expected both my older brother and me to go to college.  We both expected we’d go.  And we both did; each of us earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree.  When I graduated with my master’s in journalism I figured I was done with my education.  In some ways I was, in other ways I wasn’t.

I realized quickly that learning new things is something I enjoy a lot.  And selecting journalism as a career feeds right into that love.  I get to explore and learn about all sorts of new things.  Sometimes I explore topics I’m interested in to begin with.  Sometimes I explore topics I don’t know anything about.  Whether I knew much about the topic ahead of time, I am still happy to learn new things.

This week, for example, I learned about how to pick out a good mattress.  It’s not earth-shattering information, but I learned things I didn’t know before.  That information will come in handy next time I make a mattress purchase.   A few months ago, I learned how aviation security professionals across the globe use behavior analysis to identify security threats.  Though I have no plans of going to work for TSA, that information at least was intriguing and gives me some insight into common human behaviors and signs to look for that someone has malicious intent.

Even seemingly redundant articles can teach me things.  For a couple of years now I’ve been writing a feature article for the Homes section of my local newspaper.  Real estate companies pay for advertising and get these articles written.  I go in and write up a house a week or every other week that I’m assigned.  I write it as a walk-through.  I have learned what features increase the value of a home.  I’ve learned what constitutes a bedroom in a home (it has to have a closet).  I’ve learned what I will look for in my next home.

I have been finished with school for eight years now, and yet I never stop learning.  I don’t want to ever stop learning.  It’s a perk of my job!

Showing a point rather than just telling it is one of the characteristics of good writing — whether it be fiction or nonfiction.  This has come up recently with a client.  It has definitely come up in the past with students.

In journalism having facts to back up statements is what is important.  Those background facts are often what will show a point rather than just telling the writer that something is so.  Here’s an example:

Telling: More women have been diagnosed with interstitial cystitis than men.
Showing: Of the approximately 1 million Americans who have interstitial cystitis, 90 percent of them are female.

While both statements convey the same point, the second one is more effective.  It shows why the point is so.  It’s more specific.  It gives the reader more information.  It’s just better writing.

The same is true in fiction writing as well.  The best books I’ve read are by authors who are good at showing versus telling.  Off the top of my head, the best authors I think of who do this are R.A. Salvatore, J.K. Rowling, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.  They give us characters and story lines that we are drawn into because they show us what is happening.   Here’s an example:

Telling: Alana was nervous as she waited for her interview.
Showing: Alana had bitten her fingernails nearly to the nub as she sat, tapping her foot, waiting for her interview to begin.

Again, the same point is conveyed by the “showing” sentence paints a clearer picture for the reader.  We not only pick up on the fact that Alana is nervous, but we can better see her being nervous.

Think about the difference between showing and telling next time you pick up a book.  If you become enthralled with it and transported into that fictional world, I can almost guarantee you are reading an author who shows more than he or she tells.

One thing I’ve taught in journalism classes is the concept of community journalism.  It’s that responsibility of journalists to report on topics to better their communities.  Sometimes that community can be much larger than a certain geographic area.

Stories that can help people are just as important as reporting the latest headlines.  The press is still powerful, even with the Internet.  And, like Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

I was reminded of this recently through another blog — this one from Al Tompkins at Poynter.  His post discussed a conversation he had with the mother of a serviceman who committed suicide after returning from Iraq.  She wanted to compel journalists to write articles about resources available to veterans for mental health assistance.

While journalists don’t like to be told what to write, we are also responsible to our readers.  Good writers and editors focus on what their audiences want and need to read.  I agree that listening to readers’ suggestions are important.  And this topic, in particular, is a big one.

I have written numerous articles about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, specifically in relation to war veterans.  It is a topic that I care about.  It is a topic that is not discussed often enough.  And if the VA is lacking in its response to veterans’ needs, who better than journalists to bring it to light?  Who better than journalists to give desperate veterans information on where they can go for help?

We have a social responsibility.  We must take that seriously and be careful to not sensationalize.  We must remember our true purpose: to serve those who read our work.  Articles written for any other reason are not worth the ink they take to print.

The New York Times’ announcement yesterday that it will start charging for content in 2011 draws strong reactions from many folks.  Some say they’ll never pay for online content.  Others support the decision.  I have to admit that I fall into the latter category mostly because of how the New York Times has set up its payment structure.

The newspaper plans to allow general users access to a certain amount of articles each month and then charge a flat fee for unlimited access thereafter.  Subscribers will have completely free online content.  The New York Times continues to by mum about how many articles will be free.  As long as it’s a reasonable amount, then I agree with their choice.  The new format is designed to still be free for casual users and only charge those who really do read the entire newspaper for free.

Honestly, that makes sense to me.  Newspapers are a business.  Real-life journalists don’t work for free.  I certainly don’t.

Other newspaper, however, are struggling with what to do to make up for revenue lost to their online versions.  My local newspaper, for example, has started running one “enticing” article a day that it only teases on its Web site.  For the entire article, readers must purchase a hard copy of the paper.  Mostly, I find this annoying.  I like the New York Times idea in that it doesn’t make me get up and go somewhere to get the article.  I’d rather see my local newspaper charge a small fee online and have all content available there.

Media outlets continue to navigate the Internet waters and figure out how to use the Internet to boost sales and interest while not running themselves out of business by providing all free content.  As one of the largest newspapers in the country, this decision by the New York Times will most likely have repercussions throughout the country.  Smaller newspapers may mimic the model.  And, I have to say, I think it is one that will work.

Hats off to the New York Times!

I enjoy my work.  That’s no secret, but sometimes I enjoy it even more when my work overlaps with my personal interests.  The two came together this past weekend when I covered Gen Con Indy 2009 for The (Muncie) Star Press.

Though Gen Con is in its 42nd year, it’s been held in Indianapolis since 2003.  Indianapolis is 60 miles from where I live, so it’s an easy drive.  I’ve discovered that it provides a great opportunity for me to combine my work and personal interests.  Gen Con includes just about anything gaming related: electronic games, card games, board games, role-playing games and more.

A few years ago, I went from being a gamer’s wife to being a gaming wife.  Games have long been an interest of my husband’s, but they didn’t interest me too much until a few years ago.  He’s still the biggest gamer in our home, hands down, but I enjoy playing along with him sometimes.

We first went to Gen Con four years ago as attendees.  I was only half interested, if even that.  Once I was there, though, I found myself enjoying the experience.  We spent the day traipsing all through the Exhibit Hall in the Indiana Convention Center.  It was that year I realized the potential of covering the event for publication as well.

As a freelancer, I am always on the lookout for new markets and new “gigs.”  I look for stories everywhere.   Gen Con had its share of stories.  Since then, I’ve done some work ahead of time and found editors who were looking for articles about Gen Con.  Last year and this year, I wrote articles for my local newspaper.  I’m hoping to expand even more next year.

And since the articles are newsy rather than personal, I decided blog a bit about my own experiences at Gen Con this year.  It was the first year that I was able to go for two days instead of just one.  Going for one day always feels like we’re rushed to get everything in, and we still have stuff we want to do when we leave.  Going for two days was pretty similar!  We had a chance to do more this year, but we still had things we wished we would have had time for when we left.

One difference I’ve noticed since the first Gen Con I went to is the smaller amount of free stuff given out.  That first year we were heavy laden with free goodies.  Each year since the offerings have gotten smaller and smaller.  This year had very little free stuff.  However, this year did include a coupon book.  We got free dice keychains with one coupon, a board game for $1 with another and a card game for $5 with yet another.  That was nice.  I’m willing to give any game a try for the right price!

We spent the first day walking through the exhibit hall checking out everything.  The electronic games probably had the most impressive booths.  A booth for a new game based on Dante’s Inferno definitely caught attention as did the Atari booth promoting Champions Online, a computer game launching Sept. 1 that has received much hype.  The Atari booth was especially crowded at 4 p.m. each day when a raffle took place to win a lifetime subscription to the game.  My husband was hoping for that one, but neither of our numbers were called.  We’re just going to have to bite the bullet and pay for that ourselves.

The second day was spent mostly doing game demos.  We haven’t gotten to do that much in the past because with one day there just isn’t enough time.  We did a game demo through Upper Deck for a new Marvel card game coming out the first part of next year.  As a die-hard Marvel fan, I was thrilled to do the demo, but disappointed with the cards I drew.  My husband easily beat me fair and square.  The game is based more on the Marvel movies.  One thing that bothered me was the main character (in my case Wolverine; in my husband’s case Iron Man) could be pulled out and used as many times as you wanted.  It doesn’t make sense to me to have more than one Wolverine.

Our second game demo for Gen Con Indy 2009 was a Penny Arcade card game.  The game is based on a comic about two guys, Gabe and Tycho, who are typical gamers.  My husband enjoys the comic.  I’ve read a few that he’s sent to me.  Basically, we ended up trying this game because it was produced through Fantasy Flight, and we were waiting for a demo of Descent.  However, I’m glad we tried it.  First, I’m glad because I won and I like winning!  I was also glad, though, because it was a fun game.  We enjoyed it so much that we picked it up for $25 from the Fantasy Flight booth.  It will be a good one for family vacations or quick games on weeknights.  It was probably my biggest surprise of Gen Con.

The third game demo was the aforementioned Descent board game, also from Fantasy Flight.  This board game is pretty unique.  We actually purchased it a few months ago and played it once.  But as a newer gamer, I was easily confused by it and even my husband needed some clarification, so we did a demo.  For those who have played role-playing games, many of them require a Game Master (GM).  This game is different.  Basically there is a Warlord who is trying to kill the heroes in the game.  My husband and I played along with two others as heroes.  Our Warlord was great at instructions and has been involved with creating expansion packs for the game.  We had a great time and learned more about the game.  I especially loved at the end when I defeated the final two monsters in one round — a first for this year’s Gen Con, according to our Warlord.  Score!  We had such a good time that the day after our return from Gen Con, we sat down and played our own Descent game and had a blast.

Overall, Gen Con was fun.  I spent time on Friday (our day one) conducting interviews for my article and then put it together at lunchtime.  I got it sent off to my newspaper editor before dinner that evening so it could run in the next day’s paper.  It was definitely great to combine work and fun.  My wheels are already turning about how I can get even more work based on next year’s Gen Con!

Sure, this one has a punny title, but I couldn’t resist.  While the title may be punny (I won’t go as far as to say funny!), the topic is quite serious.  Changes in viewpoint are a pet peeve of mine and a mistake that many beginning writers can easily make without realizing it.

Before we can talk about changing viewpoint, we must first talk about the types of viewpoint out there.

• First person: This is an article or story written from one person’s point of view.  This blog is written in first person.  First person uses pronouns like “I,” “me,” “mine,” etc.  While first person is frequently used in casual writing, it is almost never used in news reporting.  In my years of writing professionally, I have only written from first person fewer than 10 times.  For articles, first person should generally only be used if the writer is an authority on the topic or if the writer is describing a situation or event the way he experienced it.
• Second person: This viewpoint is often overlooked.  Second person viewpoint addresses the reader directly.  Second person uses pronouns like “you” and “your.”  Of all the viewpoints, it can be most lenient and sometimes used in conjunction with first or third person, but that should be done sparingly.  Second person is most often found in how-to articles.  The trick with it is to avoid becoming preachy or condescending to the reader.
• Third person: This viewpoint does not involve the writer or the reader at all.  Third person pronouns include “he,” “she,” “they,” etc.  This is the most common viewpoint for news articles and is the viewpoint I use most of the time in my work for magazines, newspapers and even businesses.

Understanding the different viewpoints is crucial to use them correctly.  Most important is to NOT combine more than one viewpoint in the same article.  I don’t think I can preach consistency in writing enough.  In teaching, I tell my students that I’d rather them be consistently wrong in their article than to alternate back and forth.

Changes in viewpoint can sometimes slip into writing.  Most of the time with articles, readers really don’t care about the writer’s perspective.  First person is seldom used for that very reason.  If first person is used, then it should be used consistently, not just in a lead and forgotten about.  A writer should never interject himself in the article without a compelling reason to do so.

Second person can sometimes be used in a lead to draw a reader in and then switch to third person for the rest of the article, but this should be done sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.  One common lead is reader commonality, which starts with something like: “Don’t you just hate when X happens?”  This can work, but it isn’t the strongest type of lead and certainly shouldn’t be overdone.  Be aware that indirect commands count as second person as well (this sentence is an example).  These are sentences that address the reader directly and give a command without using the pronoun “you.”

Third person is the best viewpoint for new writers.  And it’s the most common for news articles in general.

Since changes in viewpoint can slip into articles, editing for viewpoint is important.  When I edit my work, I look at everything: grammar, punctuation, style, viewpoint, flow, etc.  Look for direct commands that slip into second person.  Look for spots where the writer has been drawn in to the story directly.  Ask other people to read the artilce and give their feedback on viewpoint — whatever it takes.   Don’t be a viewpoint switcher!

If you’ve searched for information online, then you’ve surely come across Wikipedia.  It’s user generated and regulated — meaning anyone can edit the information.  And information can be found on a broad range of topics from diseases to celebrities to televisions.  Pretty much anything.

But is it trustworthy?  That’s where the debate starts.  And the debate is important.  For example, New Scientist recently reported that 50 percent of medical doctors are using Wikipedia for information.  Its trustworthiness goes beyond whether an article we’re writing is accurate.  It affects our lives.

The theory on Wikipedia that I employ and teach my students to employ is that it’s a good starting point, but any information found on the site needs to be confirmed by a more solid source.  That’s what I hope is happening with doctor’s using Wikipedia to look up information on certain prescription drugs or conditions.

In the end, the Wikipedia debate comes down to whether the information is reliable.  Because it is user generated information it is both reliable and unreliable.  My very tech-savvy husband falls more to the reliable side of the debate.  His argument is that with so many people editing it, the information is bound to be accurate.  Someone who knows better isn’t going to let a mistake go uncorrected.  The New Scientist article even points out that no factual mistakes were found.  That’s a decent track record.  And we can surely all agree that multiple heads are better than one for catching mistakes.

However, I fall more on the unreliable side of the debate, especially for article writing.  I feel as a journalist that I have a responsibility to my readers to dig deeper than the general, user-generated information on Wikipedia.  Does that mean I never visit the site?  No.  Does that mean that I may start with the site to get an idea for what kind of sources and information to look for?  Sometimes, especially if it’s a new article topic I’m not familiar with.

All that said, I also need to point out that Wikipedia articles include references for where the information is coming from.  That means the information has to have some credibility to it.  I would say, though, instead of using the Wikipedia page as a source to go to the actual sources quoted.  First, you can confirm what is written on Wikipedia is true.  And second, you’ve just found a primary source.

Primary sources are those who were/are directly involved in the event or topic being covered.  Secondary sources are people outside of the event/topic reporting on it.  For example, I originally found the New Scientist article through another Web site.  But, to use it as a source and credit it, I went back to the actual article.  I even checked the information the article references for accuracy.  I’ve long been a fan of the Pew Internet & American Life project for data, so I made sure what New Scientist reported was actually what Pew found.  I didn’t want to quote a secondary source even in my blog.

Wikipedia seems, to me, to fall into that secondary source category.  Sure, some of those editing the posts may be directly involved, but we don’t know that.  My biggest problem with Wikipedia is that very fact — we don’t know who is behind the information.  Since it’s such a large collaboration, knowing who specifically said what is impossible anyway.  How do you quote that?  At least going to the primary sources at the bottom of each Wikipedia page gives you a more primary source to reference.

At the end of the day, credibility is most important.  Wikipedia is credible to an extent.  But, it’s a secondary source that has no place being quoted or referenced in articles.  Too many other sources exist to draw information from if you’re willing to take the time to look for them.

How do you feel about Wikipedia?

As we talked about last week, interviews are a time to do much more listening than talking.  However, you will always have sources that you connect with more than others.  Sometimes it’s commonalities.  Sometimes it’s from sources coming back at you questions about yourself.  And sometimes it just happens, usually with some of the most memorable interviews.

A couple of years ago, I was covering a small community just outside of my city for the local newspaper.  I was responsible for a column, profile and feature article each week.  One of the features I wrote was about a long-time local family whose mother was 98 at the time.  The family was so intertwined in the community that they had a road named for them.

I went in to their mother’s house to interview her and a few of her children.  I wasn’t sure what to expect, but they immediately welcomed me warmly.  They were overly nice.  In fact, after talking for probably 45 minutes, I agreed to let them perform their family initiation on me.  I definitely went outside my comfort zone and let them blindfold me to take me on an “airplane ride.”  It was a wood plank in the living room.  No danger was involved.

But, I connected with this family.  Though that page no longer exists, I have stayed in contact with the family.  They’ve invited me to their mother’s birthday parties, including her 100th this summer.  We just connected.

Another source I connected with even longer ago.  About four years ago, I was writing an article for a denomination publication about how its churches were using the Internet to reach out to members.  I found a church in Africa doing this very thing and contacted the pastor.  I still get e-mails from him today.  He checks in with me and asks about my family.  We’ve only spoken through e-mail, but it was a connection.

Sometimes connecting with your sources can mean getting outside of your comfort zone a bit and being blindfolded.  Sometimes it can just mean answering questions about yourself when asked.  Of course, keeping an interview on track is important, but many people feel more comfortable sharing information with someone when they know a bit about the person.  Don’t be afraid to connect with sources!

A big part of being a journalist is conducting interviews.  Being a copywriter involves meetings, which are similar in some respects to interviews.  For both situations, listening is vital.

A stereotypical writer is a person who is quiet and shy.  Notice I the use of the word “stereotypical” in that last sentence.  Not all writers are quiet and shy.  I acknowledge that.  Personally, I do tend to fall into that quiet category and am more of an introvert.

Regardless of your natural tendencies, it’s important to know when to listen and when to speak during an interview.  A good rule of thumb is to listen 90 percent of the time.  Here are some tips for good listening:

1. Give nonverbal and subtle verbal cues to show you’re listening.  Whether I’m on the phone or in person, I do this.  It can be a nod of the head, an “uh-huh” or just looking the person in the eye.  While taking notes during an interview is important, it’s just as important to keep conversation cues in place to encourage the person to keep talking and feel comfortable to do so.
2. Ask follow-up questions when appropriate.  While listening is vital, so is asking follow-up questions when relevant.  Think about talking with a friend who is telling you a story.  Throughout their story, you ask a question here and there to clarify things or keep the story going.  Even just questions like “What did you do?” or “What were you thinking?” can show the person you’re listening and really do care what they’re saying.
3. Don’t get overly absorbed in your notes. A good way to turn someone off is to keep your head bent into your notebook throughout the entire interview.  I like phone interviews because I can type faster to keep pace.  However, for in-person interviews or important, complex interviews, I record the interview as well so I don’t have to take as many notes and be distracted from really listening.  Never rely solely on a recorder since technical errors occur, but it’s a great backup plan.  I sometimes even make notes of the time on the recording where a good quote is that I don’t have time to write down.  However, don’t make a big fuss with the recorder.  Ask the source if it’s OK for you to record (common courtesy), then sit it down near them and leave it be.
4. Don’t be afraid of silence. I don’t want this to come across as being smarmy, but when silence happens, people want to fill it.  Sometimes I get the best information from my sources just by staying silent for a moment when they’re finished talking.  I’m not trying to trick them.  The kind of writing I do isn’t investigative anyway, but they feel the need to fill silence and sometimes expand more on a topic and I get great information.

Talking can actually sometimes be vital to a good interview as well.  It makes up that other 10 percent of the time.  Sometimes you need to make small talk with someone at the start of an interview to get them to relax.  Aside from asking your questions, other times for talking come up during interviews.  Here are some examples:

1. You have something in common with your source. Not just that you both like the color red, but something in common relating to the article.  When I was in college I did a series of articles on children of Vietnam veterans with PTSD.  They were wary to speak with me thinking I might unfairly characterize their parent.  Most times I would explain that I was in their same situation and understood where they were coming from.  Just a sentence or two was enough.  I didn’t need to recount every detail of my experiences for them to get it.
2. Your source gets off track. Chitchat can be good to put a source at ease in some situations, but the bottom line is some people just really like to talk.  You know what kind of information you need, so don’t be afraid to nicely bring the conversation back around to the topic at hand.  You can ask a question to get back on track.  Or if you caused the veer off topic, you can say something like “I got a bit distracted there.  Anyway, back to what we were talking about.”  Something like that to get them back on track.

I suppose to sum it up, the best way to know when to talk and when to listen during an interview is to remember that you are there to hear the other person’s story.  You are not there to share your own.  The focus is on the interviewee and should remain there at least 99 percent of the time.

Writing for the Internet is a bit different than writing for print.  That holds true whether you’re writing an article for an online publication or content for a company’s Web site.   And while print publications are shrinking, online usage is increasing, even in the down-turned economy.  A Pew Internet and American Life Project study found that 63 percent of adult Americans have broadband Internet now, which is up 15 percent from just a year ago.

With so many users out there, writing well online is vital to getting your content read.  A few tips can make your Internet writing more successful.

First, remember that readers have to concentrate harder to read text on a computer screen versus on a printed page. While a 2,500-word feature article might work well in a print publication, chances are most Internet readers won’t plow through it.  To add to this issue is the fact that reading on a computer screen often feels like work to most users.  After all, many people sit in front a computer all day long for work and they often don’t want to continue reading on a computer after hours.

Second, know that online readers are skimmers. You may be skimming through this post.  I know I skim online.  Using subheads, bullet points and other such devices can draw readers in to your main points.  If you have enough good points, then skimmers will take time to read the entire piece.

Third, utilize the inverted pyramid. The inverted pyramid style of writing is starting with the most important information at the beginning and working down in priority from there.  Inverted pyramids work well for Internet writing because you may only get your reader to read the first couple of paragraphs, so you want to give them enough information to draw them in.  Creative leads don’t work as well online.  People want to know exactly what they’re getting up front when they are reading online.

Fourth, keep it simple. Internet writing is not the place for extra long sentences and words.  Overall, simple sentence structure and vocabulary geared to an eighth or ninth grade level is preferred.  Think similarly to your local newspaper.  Concise writing is vital for effective online writing.

Fifth, emphasize key words, but don’t get too crazy with them. You definitely want to use key words that Internet search engines will pick up on, but you don’t want to go so crazy with them as to drive your readers crazy and interfere with your message.

Finally, include related links. If you refer to another online article in your piece or are quoting a study, then link to it.  Readers are definitely more wary of information they read online and want to be able to confirm it.  You don’t want to include a link for every other word or even every paragraph, but a few well placed links really do add to your credibility.