As a reporter, I’ve had plenty of off-the-record conversations. Some juicy, some not so much. I have never, however, had the delicious pleasure of interviewing on the basis of “deep background”. This is the reporting method used by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in their new book “Game Change”.
Basically, operating on the understanding that all sources are providing deep background means that the authors do not have to reveal any of their sources in the finished product. It is an ideal method of gathering a huge amount of information and creating a sweeping omniscient narrative.
I have not read the book yet, only an excerpt in New York magazine. (As a result of reading that excerpt I cannot wait to get my hands on it.) In this instance, writing a book from an omniscient point of view is akin to the reader being transported back in time to be a fly on the wall in some of the most fascinating, infuriating, disastrous, and amazing meetings and gatherings that occurred during the 2008 presidential election. Who wouldn’t love to take that ride?!
The beautiful thing about the crafting of “Game Change” is that the authors got everyone to dish post-election under the agreement that their name would never appear in print…not exactly what the average reporter can promise. As a result, they got the dirt. Some say it’s too dirty – that the authors may have let angry ex- aides and staffers have free reign. The authors rebuttal is that they were very careful with sources and never relied on one person to shape the telling of an event.
Once I do finally meet all imminent work-related deadlines and get the bookstore to buy this gem, I am anticipating a riveting read. I’ve always been a big fan of the omniscient point of view in all kinds of literature. And surely this, of all books, will be intriguing considering that all of the characters are so well-known and have (or had) such carefully crafted public personas.
Now I have to confess, something that has always irked me is “journalism” that is an endless parade of information gathered from unnamed sources. I think there is without a doubt a need for off-the-record conversations, but when they overwhelm an article it begins to read like a flimsy, disposable set of quasi-might-not-actually-be-facts. Writing like this makes my skin crawl. Unfortunately, I’m seeing more and more of it all the time.
“Game Change”, I suppose the argument could be made, is one of these wannabe pieces – full of “facts”, but no substance to back it up. But in this case, that argument does not hold water. I think writing the book in this way was a necessary evil if Halperin and Heilemann wanted to tell the raw, uncensored, gritty truth. And is it really the truth? Do the authors know for sure that everything in the book is completely accurate? I don’t think they have any way of knowing that, but I am convinced that neither of them have any reason to believe that anything in the book is false.
So when all the fuss got kicked up over the Harry Reid comments, I did not find it to be completely unseemly. Some did. But not only did Reid’s staff admit that Reid made the comment to the authors, Halperin and Heilemann probably verified Reid’s feelings through another source as well. Now, should they have written the comment as a direct quote? Well, Reid’s people also never attacked the authors alleging that they violated their sourcing agreement, so it looks as if they didn’t actually do anything wrong.
The excerpt I read from New York magazine was about John and St. Elizabeth Edwards. What I found so fascinating about that part of the story is that no one knew anything about it during the campaign. Stories of John McCain aides being frustrated by Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual rigor were swirling while the campaign was still going on. Not so with the Edwardses. They fairy tale was definitely unraveling well before Edwards conceded, but the extent of the turmoil reported in the book is staggering – mostly because there was no hint of it in the mainstream media at the time.
Did the Edwards camp just have that tight a grip on what got out to the press? Was the staff so deluded by the promises of their candidate that when he morphed into a woman-crazed narcissistic lunatic, they didn’t have the heart to blow the whistle? Did they actually feel bad for an ill Elizabeth even though she’s portrayed as a raving banshee? So many questions! If the rest of “Game Change” is as good as the excerpt, and lives up to all the hype, I’m in for one awesome winter read.
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tweeting vs. Spending: Which is more universal?
If Time magazine cannot come up with one interesting-enough person in this big, wide, interesting world to name as its person of the year, then they should at least choose the Economy over Twitter.
In what can only be perceived as Time's position that there is currently an absence of news-making, attention-garnering people gracing the world stage, the pub has apparently tossed out the concept of a person altogether and has narrowed the field down to two inanimate contenders. Baffling? Yes. What would make this worse? Picking a thing that lots of people don't care about. Do I personally think that Twitter is inconsequential? Far from it. But the title should go to someone or something that registers with as wide an audience as possible.
After 2006's kitschy cop-out (You), it seems the Editorial department over there needs to step up its game and get back to the roots of its annual POTY story. The You choice was the perfect compliment, time-wise, to what has become the train wreck of blogo-journalism. Sure, technology has exploded and is allowing people to connect and share ideas in ways and in time spans never before imagined. But to make You (Designers, Users, and Keepers of the Information Age) the person of the year? Come on, Eds! Why didn't you just give "The Passage of Time" the honor and call it a day? The You story should have been a feature inside the book and someone good should have been on the cover.
Historically, the person (most usually a man...maybe they should re-think that strategy as well) is a well known, sometimes polarizing figure. (Personally, I think choosing a controversial name is more fun.) In regard to one of the top possibilities for this year, Twitter, I've heard way too much of this over the past two years: "twitter? I've never used it" or "I don't get it" or "it's only for narcissists" for it to be considered Thing of the Year. Hmmm, that just doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
Now the economy on the other hand, affects everyone, very personally. No one can take the 5th on the economy. You will never hear someone say, "the economy? I've never used it."
"The economy? I just don't get it." Now that's something people say, and that's why the story would be so good. If people don't get twitter, they just ignore it. Few people have a tight grip on how the economy works and doesn't work and yet everyone has to use it every day, like it or not. A story about the economy (provided it is handled correctly) will be way more confusing and harder to write than a twitter piece, and I guarantee that will make it a more interesting read and it will have a resonance with a much wider audience.
In what can only be perceived as Time's position that there is currently an absence of news-making, attention-garnering people gracing the world stage, the pub has apparently tossed out the concept of a person altogether and has narrowed the field down to two inanimate contenders. Baffling? Yes. What would make this worse? Picking a thing that lots of people don't care about. Do I personally think that Twitter is inconsequential? Far from it. But the title should go to someone or something that registers with as wide an audience as possible.
After 2006's kitschy cop-out (You), it seems the Editorial department over there needs to step up its game and get back to the roots of its annual POTY story. The You choice was the perfect compliment, time-wise, to what has become the train wreck of blogo-journalism. Sure, technology has exploded and is allowing people to connect and share ideas in ways and in time spans never before imagined. But to make You (Designers, Users, and Keepers of the Information Age) the person of the year? Come on, Eds! Why didn't you just give "The Passage of Time" the honor and call it a day? The You story should have been a feature inside the book and someone good should have been on the cover.
Historically, the person (most usually a man...maybe they should re-think that strategy as well) is a well known, sometimes polarizing figure. (Personally, I think choosing a controversial name is more fun.) In regard to one of the top possibilities for this year, Twitter, I've heard way too much of this over the past two years: "twitter? I've never used it" or "I don't get it" or "it's only for narcissists" for it to be considered Thing of the Year. Hmmm, that just doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
Now the economy on the other hand, affects everyone, very personally. No one can take the 5th on the economy. You will never hear someone say, "the economy? I've never used it."
"The economy? I just don't get it." Now that's something people say, and that's why the story would be so good. If people don't get twitter, they just ignore it. Few people have a tight grip on how the economy works and doesn't work and yet everyone has to use it every day, like it or not. A story about the economy (provided it is handled correctly) will be way more confusing and harder to write than a twitter piece, and I guarantee that will make it a more interesting read and it will have a resonance with a much wider audience.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Do small regionals have the answers?
So my morning ritual was not so depressing yesterday!
Editor & Publisher published the results of its ninth annual "10 That Do It Right" feature, and several regional newspapers across the country are utilizing innovative techniques that should have the national papers sitting up and taking notice (if they know what is good for them). The techniques are simple but brilliant. Best of all, they are highly transferrable. Here's a brief
round-up of some of the smarty-pants ideas helping smaller papers to thrive.
The Las Vegas Sun has slimmed down and become a "section" inside its joint-operating-agreement partner, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The small but mighty eight page insert has contently returned to true the roots of journalism. And guess what? People are reading it! Why? Because it is full of meaty investigative journalism. What's that, you say? It's what's you've been
missing!
Columnists have become the driving force at the Sioux City Journal in Iowa. The newsroom of 32 has focused on creating "something to talk about" among its print and online readers. Sure, their target audience is a small regional circulation, but with everything there is to talk about in the world, columnists are missing the boat at many larger publications. Stir the pot, columnists, stir the pot!
Briefing in Dallas, Texas has found its target audience, busy suburban moms, and they are delivering exactly what these women want. Briefing is a smaller, zippier version of The Dallas Morning News. It's so popular that the paper's acceptance rate is growing and advertisers are lining up to appear in the trim Wednesday through Saturday publication.
Freedom of information is not a privelege in America, it's a right. And the Post-Star in Glens Falls, New York is diligently reminding its readers about this fact every day. Editorials and blogs stress that it is not just Washington insiders and journalists who are entitled to transparency in government.
Everyone is talking about community building these days. This usually amounts to a fan page on Facebook for many publications still trying to harness the power of social media. The East Bay Express in Emeryville, California is actually building a strong community, dare I say, the old fashioned way. Last Christmas editors appealed to readers to pledge to spend at least $100 right in their community to stimulate their local community. The idea caught on and other papers jumped on board. The paper now has several others community-based ideas in the hopper.
How do newspapers of all sizes bring their readership back again and again? Allow them direct access to controversy, sit back and watch! The Star Tribue in Minneapolis posted all disputed ballots in the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D) on their website. An important result was that the public scrutiny made the campaigns drop several of the frivolous disputes. And the readership came very close to the actual numbers that decided the race. Hurrah for the masses!
The St. Petersburg Times is also making the most of the web to keep their readers interested, and keep politicians (somewhat) honest. The newspaper analyzed hundreds of promises made during the 2008 presidential campaign. And they didn't stop on Election Day. The Times continues its fact-checking on Obama's administration and claims made by both the right and the left.
When it comes to paving the road for the future of newspapers and journalism, I personally think the key is reaching out to youth. Dave Eggers agrees with me (see the first post on this blog). So does the Daily Independent in Ridgecrest, California. The daily not only offers internships, with serious potential of one day becoming a staffer, but also helps kids with their high school papers which it prints at cost.
Editor & Publisher published the results of its ninth annual "10 That Do It Right" feature, and several regional newspapers across the country are utilizing innovative techniques that should have the national papers sitting up and taking notice (if they know what is good for them). The techniques are simple but brilliant. Best of all, they are highly transferrable. Here's a brief
round-up of some of the smarty-pants ideas helping smaller papers to thrive.
The Las Vegas Sun has slimmed down and become a "section" inside its joint-operating-agreement partner, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The small but mighty eight page insert has contently returned to true the roots of journalism. And guess what? People are reading it! Why? Because it is full of meaty investigative journalism. What's that, you say? It's what's you've been
missing!
Columnists have become the driving force at the Sioux City Journal in Iowa. The newsroom of 32 has focused on creating "something to talk about" among its print and online readers. Sure, their target audience is a small regional circulation, but with everything there is to talk about in the world, columnists are missing the boat at many larger publications. Stir the pot, columnists, stir the pot!
Briefing in Dallas, Texas has found its target audience, busy suburban moms, and they are delivering exactly what these women want. Briefing is a smaller, zippier version of The Dallas Morning News. It's so popular that the paper's acceptance rate is growing and advertisers are lining up to appear in the trim Wednesday through Saturday publication.
Freedom of information is not a privelege in America, it's a right. And the Post-Star in Glens Falls, New York is diligently reminding its readers about this fact every day. Editorials and blogs stress that it is not just Washington insiders and journalists who are entitled to transparency in government.
Everyone is talking about community building these days. This usually amounts to a fan page on Facebook for many publications still trying to harness the power of social media. The East Bay Express in Emeryville, California is actually building a strong community, dare I say, the old fashioned way. Last Christmas editors appealed to readers to pledge to spend at least $100 right in their community to stimulate their local community. The idea caught on and other papers jumped on board. The paper now has several others community-based ideas in the hopper.
How do newspapers of all sizes bring their readership back again and again? Allow them direct access to controversy, sit back and watch! The Star Tribue in Minneapolis posted all disputed ballots in the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D) on their website. An important result was that the public scrutiny made the campaigns drop several of the frivolous disputes. And the readership came very close to the actual numbers that decided the race. Hurrah for the masses!
The St. Petersburg Times is also making the most of the web to keep their readers interested, and keep politicians (somewhat) honest. The newspaper analyzed hundreds of promises made during the 2008 presidential campaign. And they didn't stop on Election Day. The Times continues its fact-checking on Obama's administration and claims made by both the right and the left.
When it comes to paving the road for the future of newspapers and journalism, I personally think the key is reaching out to youth. Dave Eggers agrees with me (see the first post on this blog). So does the Daily Independent in Ridgecrest, California. The daily not only offers internships, with serious potential of one day becoming a staffer, but also helps kids with their high school papers which it prints at cost.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The voice of a generation
There will never be another news person like Walter Cronkite. It is impossible in part because we live in a world that is over saturated by media and information sources. There are far too many voices for one to rise above the din for dominance. It is also impossible because, well, he was Walter Cronkite.
A journalist since high school, Cronkite fell in love with the newspaper business years before the nation fell in love with him. During his career, he ushered the nation through the most transformative events of the 20th century.
He reported from the front lines of World War II after flying with fighter pilots. He broke the news of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in a professional and human way, calming fears and soothing nerves when the country was collectively frayed and on edge. He shared the awe of the nation as he giddily reported the Moon landing 40 years ago today. He gave America one of its first glimpses of the Beatles and he unabashedly expressed his disappointment with the direction the Vietnam war.
In his 20 years as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, Americans welcomed Cronkite into their living rooms because he was trustworthy, professional and accurate. He was also one of them. He had a conversational tone, a way of connecting with people all over the country that was comforting and inviting.
I probably never saw one of Cronkite's live broadcasts, but somehow I am familiar with so many of them. This is because he was not just a journalist. He was a living legacy - the epitome of a tough and unrelenting profession. He delivered news with integrity and never compromised himself in this regard.
60 Minutes ran a special on Cronkite last night. Speaking about Cronkite's retirement from the CBS Evening News in 1981, NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams said, " I couldn't shake the feeling when he retired that something more than one man was leaving the chair." Well, once again Walter Cronkite has left an enormous void. Something more than one man has left journalism.
A journalist since high school, Cronkite fell in love with the newspaper business years before the nation fell in love with him. During his career, he ushered the nation through the most transformative events of the 20th century.
He reported from the front lines of World War II after flying with fighter pilots. He broke the news of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in a professional and human way, calming fears and soothing nerves when the country was collectively frayed and on edge. He shared the awe of the nation as he giddily reported the Moon landing 40 years ago today. He gave America one of its first glimpses of the Beatles and he unabashedly expressed his disappointment with the direction the Vietnam war.
In his 20 years as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, Americans welcomed Cronkite into their living rooms because he was trustworthy, professional and accurate. He was also one of them. He had a conversational tone, a way of connecting with people all over the country that was comforting and inviting.
I probably never saw one of Cronkite's live broadcasts, but somehow I am familiar with so many of them. This is because he was not just a journalist. He was a living legacy - the epitome of a tough and unrelenting profession. He delivered news with integrity and never compromised himself in this regard.
60 Minutes ran a special on Cronkite last night. Speaking about Cronkite's retirement from the CBS Evening News in 1981, NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams said, " I couldn't shake the feeling when he retired that something more than one man was leaving the chair." Well, once again Walter Cronkite has left an enormous void. Something more than one man has left journalism.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The future is black and white...hopefully
I have a very depressing morning ritual. I visit several websites about media and journalism and read about what is potentially on the horizon for these industries. As you can imagine, much of said mornings are filled with articles and blogs about the demise of print journalism. Every day I read about how the newspaper is dying.
This is not new - this bleak news about the news started even before the economic meltdown last fall. But every once in a while, someone comes along and speaks to this issue with a perspective that buoys my spirits and with which I happen to agree. It also makes me feel like I'm not weird for being a 30 year old who prefers to read a newspaper on the train as opposed to squinting at her Blackberry.
Dave Eggers, known to many of my generation as the author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, recently spoke to Salon.com http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/07/16/dave_eggers/ about his new book and the future of the printed word as he sees it. Mercifully, his version of the future looks bright. Eggers sees print and the web living harmoniously together, so long as each makes the most of their respective potential.
Some of the young up-and-comers who take part in Eggers' writing program, 826 Valencia, are enrolled in print writing classes and (get this!) read newspapers. Of particular interest to these new writers is the chance to see their name in print. I mean actual print, in a newspaper, not in pixels. As a journalist, I can relate to the excitment and satisfaction of seeing my work in a publication as opposed to the much more crowded internet.
And that is not to say that I do not see the merits of online media. It is where we are and should be heading in many respects. But the development of web journalism does not have to be mutually exclusive of print. Eggers makes an important point when he laments the much-forecasted passing of the printed word. He says that the end of print journalism will become a reality only if we allow it to happen - newspapers do not have to die. Sure, we may all have computer chips implanted in our heads in 30 years that will really make newspapers obsolete. But those chips may also make blackberrys and iPods obsolete, so let's not get ahead of ourselves here. (That last point was mine, not Eggers'...)
What's missing from the world of web news is traditional investigative journalism. When people talk about the death of newspapers, this concern is raised again and again: the loss of stories that require more than a few hour's worth of research, stories that keep people honest, stories that uncover newsworthy information as opposed to juicy gossip. This is the kind of work that is most costly to news organizations, but it is what would be sorely missing if every major newspaper packed it in tomorrow. It could be that the web has not yet evolved enough to encompass this kind of writing. Or it may be that the newspaper format is just a lot more conducive to it.
For me, much of online media is the journalistic equivalent of reality TV. It continuously looks in on itself - editorializing and blogging (yes, I see and appreciate the irony). But I'd like to see more objective, meaningful, and thoughful commentary going on. As always, there are exceptions. There are websites with excellent commentary and focus. But if those exceptions do not multiply rapidly, and the pervading view of the uselessness of the printed word gets kicked up a few more notches, then I see a future that is not quite as bright as Eggers'. I can only hope that the writers at 826 Valencia are not anomolies and that they refuse to let their medium die.
This is not new - this bleak news about the news started even before the economic meltdown last fall. But every once in a while, someone comes along and speaks to this issue with a perspective that buoys my spirits and with which I happen to agree. It also makes me feel like I'm not weird for being a 30 year old who prefers to read a newspaper on the train as opposed to squinting at her Blackberry.
Dave Eggers, known to many of my generation as the author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, recently spoke to Salon.com http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/07/16/dave_eggers/ about his new book and the future of the printed word as he sees it. Mercifully, his version of the future looks bright. Eggers sees print and the web living harmoniously together, so long as each makes the most of their respective potential.
Some of the young up-and-comers who take part in Eggers' writing program, 826 Valencia, are enrolled in print writing classes and (get this!) read newspapers. Of particular interest to these new writers is the chance to see their name in print. I mean actual print, in a newspaper, not in pixels. As a journalist, I can relate to the excitment and satisfaction of seeing my work in a publication as opposed to the much more crowded internet.
And that is not to say that I do not see the merits of online media. It is where we are and should be heading in many respects. But the development of web journalism does not have to be mutually exclusive of print. Eggers makes an important point when he laments the much-forecasted passing of the printed word. He says that the end of print journalism will become a reality only if we allow it to happen - newspapers do not have to die. Sure, we may all have computer chips implanted in our heads in 30 years that will really make newspapers obsolete. But those chips may also make blackberrys and iPods obsolete, so let's not get ahead of ourselves here. (That last point was mine, not Eggers'...)
What's missing from the world of web news is traditional investigative journalism. When people talk about the death of newspapers, this concern is raised again and again: the loss of stories that require more than a few hour's worth of research, stories that keep people honest, stories that uncover newsworthy information as opposed to juicy gossip. This is the kind of work that is most costly to news organizations, but it is what would be sorely missing if every major newspaper packed it in tomorrow. It could be that the web has not yet evolved enough to encompass this kind of writing. Or it may be that the newspaper format is just a lot more conducive to it.
For me, much of online media is the journalistic equivalent of reality TV. It continuously looks in on itself - editorializing and blogging (yes, I see and appreciate the irony). But I'd like to see more objective, meaningful, and thoughful commentary going on. As always, there are exceptions. There are websites with excellent commentary and focus. But if those exceptions do not multiply rapidly, and the pervading view of the uselessness of the printed word gets kicked up a few more notches, then I see a future that is not quite as bright as Eggers'. I can only hope that the writers at 826 Valencia are not anomolies and that they refuse to let their medium die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
